New Republic Writer: Ron Paul Called MLK a "Gay Pedophile"
Matt Welch | January 7, 2008, 7:33pm
On Tucker Carlson's show 45 minutes ago, The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick alleged that Ron Paul called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile," and stuffed 20 years' worth of "Ron Paul" newsletters full of "racist, anti-semitic, homophobic invective."
Kirchick, whose story for TNR (along with screen-shots of the newsletters themselves) are scheduled to go up at midnight EDT "tomorrow afternoon," said that Paul "called black people animals," and spoke at a "pro-secessionist conference." In teeing up the segment, Carlson, who was skeptical about some of Kirchick's claims, reported that the Paul campaign has apologized for the content of the newsletters to both Kirchick and Carlson.
More to come from here after the gong strikes midnight.
reason on Paul here. Dave Weigel talked about Paul's newsletter racism back in July. Nick Gillespie and I tried to make sense of the rEVOLution for the Washington Post late last year. Brian Doherty covered the Paul campaign from the beginning, asked if Paul was good for libertarians in July, and wrote our current cover story.
UPDATE: Video here.
Max Engel | January 7, 2008, 8:28pm | #
Call for a retraction of these false allegations
CanWest Media Works International
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
CanWest MediaWorks UK Ltd.
4th Floor
Roman Landing
Kingsway
Southampton, Hants
SO14 1BN
Telephone: +44(0)238 038 4100
Fax: +44(0)238 038 4160
E-mail: info@canwest.co.uk
Web site: www.canwest.co.uk
CANWEST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Deighton House
Dayrelle's Road at Deighton
St. Michael BB14030
Barbados
Telephone: (246) 436-3421
Fax: (246) 228-3847
CanWest MediaWorks New Zealand
P.O. Box 8822
Symonds Street
Auckland, New Zealand
Telephone: (64) (9) 373-2435
Fax: (64) (9) 373-2483
Web site: www.mediaworks.co.nz
NETWORK TEN
1 Saunders Street, GPO Box 10
Pyrmont, NSW
Australia 2009
Telephone: (61) (2) 9650-1010
Fax: (61) (2) 9650-1111
Web site: www.ten.com.au
The New Republic
1331 H Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 508-4444
Web site: www.tnr.com
Original 106fm Solent
Roman Landing
Kingsway, Southampton
SO14 1BN
Telephone: 023 8038 4100
Fax: 023 8082 9844
Web site: www.original106.com
Original 106.5fm Bristol
County Gates
Ashton Road, Bristol
BS3 2JH
Telephone: 0117 966 1065
Web site: www.originalbristol.com
CanWest Medya Turkiye
Buyukdere Caddesi C.E.M. Is Merkezi
No.: 23 Kat: 4 34361Â Sisli
Istanbul, Turkey
Telephone: +90 (212) 368 62 04
CanWest Media Works International
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
CanWest MediaWorks UK Ltd.
4th Floor
Roman Landing
Kingsway
Southampton, Hants
SO14 1BN
Telephone: +44(0)238 038 4100
Fax: +44(0)238 038 4160
E-mail: info@canwest.co.uk
Web site: www.canwest.co.uk
CANWEST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Deighton House
Dayrelle's Road at Deighton
St. Michael BB14030
Barbados
Telephone: (246) 436-3421
Fax: (246) 228-3847
CanWest MediaWorks New Zealand
P.O. Box 8822
Symonds Street
Auckland, New Zealand
Telephone: (64) (9) 373-2435
Fax: (64) (9) 373-2483
Web site: www.mediaworks.co.nz
NETWORK TEN
1 Saunders Street, GPO Box 10
Pyrmont, NSW
Australia 2009
Telephone: (61) (2) 9650-1010
Fax: (61) (2) 9650-1111
Web site: www.ten.com.au
The New Republic
1331 H Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 508-4444
Web site: www.tnr.com
Original 106fm Solent
Roman Landing
Kingsway, Southampton
SO14 1BN
Telephone: 023 8038 4100
Fax: 023 8082 9844
Web site: www.original106.com
Original 106.5fm Bristol
County Gates
Ashton Road, Bristol
BS3 2JH
Telephone: 0117 966 1065
Web site: www.originalbristol.com
CanWest Medya Turkiye
Buyukdere Caddesi C.E.M. Is Merkezi
No.: 23 Kat: 4 34361Â Sisli
Istanbul, Turkey
Telephone: +90 (212) 368 62 04
Jeff Winchell | January 7, 2008, 9:40pm | #
This is so absurd. Look at someone's values, and then decide whether a story has merit. Frankly, after spending so much time with Ron Paul, Tucker should have had more skepticism.
Ron Paul doesn't want to force people to do things.
That's a core value of his.
He applies it so thoroughly, that if someone says something racist, it doesn't matter whether the person donated money to him, or whether the person wrote some articles in a publication that he is associated with. He believes in free speech, FAR MORE than the Republican demagogues.
Tactically speaking, I thought his answer about the racist donating $500 to his campaign was perfect. He said that's $500 less that racist doesn't have to spend on something useful, because Paul said he has no intention on spreading a racist message (just go look at his home page, racism is one of menu items on his main menu of issues).
As for apologizing, yes I'm sure Paul doesn't like some of the stuff other people wrote in that publication he put his name to. He also has no desire to ever gamble or go see a prostitute, but he isn't going to turn gamblers or Nevada brothels away from supporting his campaign.
He's a libertarian. Let people do what they want as long as they don't interfere with other people doing what they want.
As Paul continues to get more donations, and better poll numbers, expect more outrageous comments to come out in the media. And if it's like most media, they won't bother to dig in deeply to understand what it's about.
OTOH, when someone from the media does ask Paul and they have the patience to listen. Invariably there is a logical explanation to the controversy.
But you can't have the attention span of a 2 year old if you want to support Paul.
Fin Fang Foom | January 7, 2008, 9:55pm | #
> Mr. X | January 7, 2008, 9:28pm | #
> You know, as a response to an attack alleging > that Ron Paul is racist, claiming that "The
> New Republic is owned by Zionists in bed with > Fox" is a pretty weak argument.
If you were directing this towards my comment, one should note I didn't say that TNR is "owned by Zionists."
However, some people who strongly support Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians view anyone who is against foreign aid to Israel as anti-Semites.
Note that "some people who strongly support Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians view anyone who is against foreign aid to Israel as anti-Semites" is not code for "Jews," rather it means "some people who strongly support Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians view anyone who is against foreign aid to Israel as anti-Semites."
Also, this is obviously a total hatchet job. Even if the article and newsletters reveal that Ron Paul is a frothing Nazi, why is it coming out now? At the beginning of the day of the NH primary? 20 years of analog newsletters seems like a bit much to review such that the proper time for publishing them would be at midnight.
My conspiracy theory is: TNR desperately wants to make sure that someone who supports the war wins the election. This could be HRC or all the Republicans but Paul. If HRC drops out soon, then Paul's criticisms of the war, despite the fact that he no chance of winning, would help to weaken the Republican field in the general election.
Jane | January 8, 2008, 2:08am | #
Via Berin M. Szoka ---
Monday, January 7, 2008
Jamie Kirchick: "I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical"
Jamie Kirchick announced with a smirk on his face the size of Manhattan--that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the next day--which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very day of the New Hampshire primary.
I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my "Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul... I've been reading up on him.
I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the party tonight, though Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking Log Cabin Republicans for not endorsing Giuliani as the "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie
When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I could read more, he answered: "Patience, my friend :-)"
Patience, indeed.
Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.
natschultz | January 8, 2008, 5:10am | #
Here, a comment from Red State on this issue:
http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/rudy08/2008/jan/08/ron_paul_has_called_mlk_a_gay_paedophile
This will be big, I bet. I think we are witnessing the end of the Ron Paul campaign here, boys. Woo-hoo!
i'd rather he didn't go down this way, though by gideon1789
i'd prefer that voters rejected his positions on the merits
Not me
by bamapachyderm
The people he represents (neo-Nazis, white supremacists, troofers, etc.) and the hate he spews should be rejected first. That kind does not deserve a seat at the table, and the sooner that filth is made taboo, the better.
His hateful, nutty theories (NWO/CFR/Trilateral Commission nonsense, abolish the Fed--an old favorite anti-Semitic goal--etc.) all go hand in hand with his alliances with the scum of the earth. You can almost not have one without the other.
Ron Paul is an utter disgrace to America, and an even worse disgrace to the GOP. I'm appalled that he even gets to run as a Republican. I don't want his type identifying as "Republicans"--let the crazies run with the irrelevant Crazy Parties.
Don't you think it's a bit curious that virtually all of the most virulent hate groups are on board with the Paultards?
I've done the research. It's not made-up nonsense; he has long-established ties to the filthiest people on the far, far, extreme "right" (it makes me sick saying they're on "the right").
Rudy has plenty to answer for (hey, who doesn't?), but it's not even in the same universe as Ron Paul's transgressions pathology.
(from a Fred supporter)
Bruce Majors | January 8, 2008, 6:49am | #
As Berin Szorka has shown,this is just a redux of the Glass affair at the New Republic. Those Peretzian capitalists will tellany lie to sell their Dewmit version of the "National Enquirer"
I was at the party and observed Kirchick saying and smirking about the same kinds of things.
New Republic exposed -- Glass fraud redux
skip to main | skip to sidebar
Monday, January 7, 2008
Jamie Kirchick: "I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical"
Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, appeared tonight on Tucker Carlson's show to announce--with a smirk on his face the size of Manhattan--that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the next day--which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very day of the New Hampshire primary.
I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my "Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul... I've been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy's written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!"
I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the party tonight, though Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking Log Cabin Republicans for not endorsing Giuliani as the "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie
When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I could read more, he answered: "Patience, my friend :-)"
Patience, indeed.
Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.
The richest irony is that the Ron Paul grassroots campaign in Washington, DC--Jamie's hometown--has found its earliest and strongest supporters in DC's gay community. It would not surprise me if our slate of delegate and alternate delegate candidates for Ron Paul is the gayest slate in DC (measured by number of gay individuals--not gayness of individuals), very probably the gayest slate in DC ever, and probably one of the gayest slates for a major party Presidential candidate of any state ever.
Posted by Berin M. Szoka at 8:25 PM
Labels: Smear tactics
Bradley in DC | January 8, 2008, 8:50am | #
This was on RonPaulForums.com
Jamie Kirchick: "I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical"
Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, appeared tonight on Tucker Carlson's show to announce--with a smirk on his face the size of Manhattan--that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the next day--which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very day of the New Hampshire primary.
I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my "Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul... I've been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy's written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!"
I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the party tonight, though Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking Log Cabin Republicans for not endorsing Giuliani as the "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie
When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I could read more, he answered: "Patience, my friend :-)"
Patience, indeed.
Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.
The richest irony is that the Ron Paul grassroots campaign in Washington, DC--Jamie's hometown--has found its earliest and strongest supporters in DC's gay community. It would not surprise me if our slate of delegate and alternate delegate candidates for Ron Paul is the gayest slate in DC (measured by number of gay individuals--not gayness of individuals), very probably the gayest slate in DC ever, and probably one of the gayest slates for a major party Presidential candidate of any state ever.
POSTED BY BERIN M. SZOKA AT 11:25 PM
tarran | January 8, 2008, 10:22am | #
if you're a little bit of a "racial traditionalist," and you hold far-right positions on issues like gun rights or seccession, it's possible to find yourself in and among some genuinely revolting people and misunderstand where they're coming from. Particularly if you are the Congressman and they're trying to make you happy so they can ride your coattails, and if you are maybe a bit too trusting and unconcerned with details.
One point I want to add to this. By the early 1960's libertarianism was dead. I'll bet there were only a few hundred libertarian intellectuals left in the U.S. The primary argument weren't about whether the welfare state was a good idea but how big it should be. The monetary policy of all major central banks and nation states were based on Keynesianism, and the debates were focused on how much to 'prime the pump'.
When one has few allies, and one sees disaster in the looming in the future, it is understandable that one will be less choosy in which people one makes common cause with, much like the U.S. alliance with the Soviet Union against Germany
In this decade libertarianism has tens of thousands of intellectuals promoting it. It has a robust culture to the point that it is impossible to personally meet every influential libertarian thinker or supporter. I think we have turned a corner; modern communications technology ensures that libertarianism will probably never come again so close to extinction as in the dark decades before Ron Paul raised his standard.
Furthermore, despite what I see is a poor judgement about people, my hat is off to Ron Paul. It is clear to me that he would rather not be a politician. I think the guy would absolutely love to be back in Texas giving his grandchildren and great-grandchildren rides on his tractor and enjoying the life of a semiretired and respected physician.
When Nixon went off the gold standard ti set the stage for a monetary disaster, Ron Paul correctly recognized the implications of this policy decision and jumped into politics, not because he wanted the glory of being a Congressman, but because he felt someone had to jump into the breach. Like the hobo made famous by Robert Heinlein who died trying to save a woman who had gotten her foot wedged in some railroad tracks, Ron Paul has poured irreplaceable years of his life into something that he clearly does not enjoy.
That is why I have a soft spot for the man. Yes, he has weaknesses. Yes, he makes colossal errors on occasion. But unlike many people who read the same economic textbooks as he does, unlike many people who correctly recognize the near certainty of economic ruin that accompanies currency debasement rather than sniping from the sidelines and sneering at society, he rolled up his sleeves and dove into the task of averting disaster despite his many shortcomings. For that, I will always respect him.
It is important to note that Ron Paul's movement is not about him. he is merely the figure head. Another can rise up and take his place. Far more important are the ideas he has been advocating of limited, prudent government. It is important that we not lose sight of that fact. Americans tend to go into fuhrer worship, and some of that has been happening with Ron Paul's fan base. It is the ideas that are important, not the man.
Edward | January 8, 2008, 3:16pm | #
Here's an excerpt from Kirchick's piece. Boy, has David Duke returned the favor.
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
Andrew Taylor | January 8, 2008, 4:07pm | #
I’ve now read James Kirchick’s piece. The gist of the article is already known to persons who have been following the Paul campaign, as excerpts of some of the most asinine and repugnant material in the newsletters has already been widely published.
As a former subscriber to the newsletter in question — admittedly, not during the entirety of its existence — I can write without fear of contradiction that it was a typical hard-money, right-wing newsletter, with constant predictions of the end of the world as we know it, and the like. It was comparable to many newsletters being published on the right during its day — such as Howard J. Ruff’s "The Ruff Times" and Gary "Y2K" North’s "Remnant Review." Most of these newsletters were marketed to folks on the fringe who believed in stockpiling food and investing in gold in the face of the inevitable collapse of the United States economy. I subscribed because I liked Paul and appreciated his economic and political views; I found the newsletter itself pretty boring and silly.
I don’t recall reading any of the racist stuff at all. That’s not to say that it didn’t exist, as some obviously did, but it certainly wasn’t the main material presented in the newsletter. In addition — and I will be happily corrected if my recollection is faulty — I thought that, back when this issue was raised in 1996 in Paul’s congressional campaign, blogger Lew Rockwell (Paul’s former chief of staff) admitted that he was the ghostwriter of the newsletter. Rockwell was also at the helm of another newsletter, one featuring his name, along with that of libertarian gadfly Murray Rothbard — who just happened to be Jewish. (So much for the anti-Semitism argument).
Those who are jumping on this story — such as the expected glee over at Red State — might not want the "blowback" which is going to accompany it. Red State is owned by Eagle Publishing, which also owns the Conservative Book Club, "Human Events," and Regnery Publishing. To condemn Paul, Kirchick cites the association of Thomas E. Woods, Jr., with the Mises Institute:
"Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004."
It just so happens that the book cited by Kirchick was published by Regnery, owner of Eagle and Red State, and endorsed by no less a neoconservative luminary than Sean Hannity:
"Written to counterbalance revisionist history texts, Woods’ book has turned into a surprise best seller, soaring to #2 on the Amazon.com list after debuting on FOX’s Hannity & Colmes last Monday and ranking #14 on The New York Times bestsellers list for non-fiction paperbacks the week of December 26."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=6087
Will those attacking Paul now aim at Sean Hannity for promoting what Kirchick describes as a "pro-Confederate, revisionist tract"? How about the fact that a writer at Michael Medved’s Townhall site also promotes the book to his readers?
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=d313d3c3-057d-4444-89c8-0ce4160bdcbb
It would seem that those conservatives who are so worried about Paul’s alleged racism would do right to shine the bright light of their analysis on some of these folks who are more prominent and therefore likely more influential as well. Unless they really don’t give a damn about racism (as I suspect), and it’s really about discrediting someone who is a Republican who has the temerity to oppose the Iraq War.
Unlike most of my fellow Paul supporters, I don’t think Paul has a chance to become the Republican nominee. Therefore, I’m not worried about that Kirchick’s article will doom his prospects as a candidate. What saddens me, however, is that Paul will be accused of being something he’s not, which is a racist, and that his name will forever be tarnished by that label. Has Paul done some stupid things in the past? Clearly. He allowed his name to be used on a newsletter and obviously trusted Lew Rockwell or whoever was writing it to not publish material that would sully his good name. He further compounded the problem when he didn’t clearly explain the issue when it first arose in 1996, allowing it to remain a weapon with which he could be bludgeoned by those who dislike him. But making stupid mistakes doesn’t make someone a racist. It may certainly disqualify him as a serious presidential candidate for lack of judgment, but it doesn’t mean he’s a secret Klansman or neo-Nazi.
The thing I find most ridiculous about Kirchick’s "Tucker" interview is his claim that Paul "speaks in code" to the racists who support him. I like Paul and support him, but will be the first to admit that he is an ineffective and lousy communicator. I seriously doubt that he could pull off such a charade — the man gets tongue-tied trying to make the case for things in which he deeply believes. How could he possibly be so effective in concealing anti-Semitism and racism for so long? Kirchick is beyond straining credulity.
I agree with Kirchick on one point: Ron Paul won’t be president.
J | January 9, 2008, 12:28am | #
As a Ron Paul supporter from way back I feel the need to add some clarity to this and to defend a man I respect a great deal. First, Ron Paul is not a racist.
youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so (Still not allowed to post URL's, sorry you'll have to copy and paste.)
He speaks his mind. You will not find one shred of evidence to substantiate this claim in 10 terms of voting and speaking in the Senate. He and Congress woman McKinney have co-sponsored bills together, in some cases by themselves. Furthermore, I beg you to consider the source of this obvious hit piece. The New Republic, and more precisely Kirchick, who went to Yale, like Bush and Kerry is widely known throughout the media for his flagrant accusations against anyone who doesn't support the neocon perspective and the current administration. In fact these allegations were brought against Paul in a '96 campaign and were dropped because the person who actually wrote this stuff, a guy by the name of Dondero stepped forward and admitted that Ron Paul was not the author and that he (RP) never saw the copy before it went to print. In fact, the large majority of what the The New Republic intends to reference was published at a time when Paul was not active in Congress or writing for the publication. He was home with his family tending his farm.
As for the speaking at a pro-secessionist conference "in the south", here's a news flash. When politicians campaign they speak to a lot of groups. In this case Ron was running on the Libertarian ticket. Anyone who is familiar with their ideals knows that the Libertarian Party has long been an advocate of the states rights to succeed. His capacity at this meeting was just that, and nothing more. If he were running in New Hampshire, a state known for it's pro-secessionist movement, he likely would have addressed them in the same right.
All this stuff was brought to light over 10 years ago and Paul has admitted he his negligence in not overseeing the publication at all times. He even went so far as to accept responsibility on morale grounds, apologized for the content and vehemently denied and denounced any of the crap they intend to pin on him.
The part that frustrates me about all this nonsense is the way we as RP supporters are constantly having to defend our links and claims, yet one link and one claim from his detractors is taken as though it were the word of God. Nobody bothers to do any fact checking, and everyone automatically agrees that it must be the truth. It's so damn hypocritical. If your going make the assumption we're all moon-bats at least have the same skepticism across the board. For crying out loud Bush's policies aren't even a secret. He and his administration are killing thousands of US soldiers in Iraq, the large majority of which come from minority groups. Ron Paul is running on a platform of ending that bs. So before you all jump on the "RP's a racist bandwagon" I beg you do some research for yourselves.
Douglas Westerman | January 11, 2008, 7:22pm | #
Ron Paul is the only one with the courage to mention how much crime is due to blacks:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2004 report (released May 2006), blacks commit 54 percent of the homicides in America even though they constitute only 12 percent of the population.
An individual black male is seven times more likely to commit murder than an individual white male. It so happens that black felons commit 43 percent of aggravated assaults, 66 percent of armed robberies, 27 percent of rapes and 85 percent of interracial crimes of violence, mainly against whites (this last figure from a Justice Department report 2003).
However, it's not just in the United States. The greatest dicators in recent years have emerged in Africa. People like Idi Amin of Uganda, Hastings Kamuzu Banda in Malawi, Mobutu Sese Seko, in Zaire, self-anointed Emperor Bokassa of the Central African Republic, Mohammed Saidi Barre in Somalia, Sani Abacha of Nigeria, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe -- the list is endless.
statistics analyzed by the New York Times (July 4, 1999) dispel the poverty argument by establishing that impoverished white children whose parents earn less than $10,000 a year score higher on standardized SAT tests than black children whose parents earn more than $70,000 a year. Also, nearly 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock.
Could the horrific genocide in Rwanda have been done by whites or asians? I doubt it. I must be a racist.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
