Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul
The hysteria that is energizing the campaign to smear Ron Paul and his supporters as “racist” is reaching a crescendo of viciousness, as the Beltway “libertarian” crowd revs up its motors for a righteous purge. Writing in the online edition of Reason magazine, David Weigel and Julian Sanchez (the latter of the Cato Institute) aver that the whole brouhaha is rooted in a “strategy” enunciated by the late Murray N. Rothbard, the economist and author, and Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, designed to appeal to “right-wing populists”:
“During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—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 byThe New Republic.
“….The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement.” Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks,” which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”
Reason, of course, in it’s new incarnation as the official organ of the libertarian movement’s aging hipsters and would-be “cool kids,” vehemently opposes reaching out to middle and working class Americans: that is far too “square” for the black-leather-jacket-wearing Nick Gillespie, formerly associated with something called Suck magazine, and Matt Welch, who was an unknown quantity before getting the job at Reason. Right-wing populism? As far as the Suck-y crowd is concerned, one might as well tout the appeal of “right-wing botulism.” Libertarianism, as understood by the editors of Reason, is all about legalizing methamphetamine, having endless “hook-ups,” and giving mega-corporations tax breaks (so Reason can keep scarfing up those big corporate contributors). The decidedly “square” Dr. Paul—a ten-term Republican congressman from Texas, no less, and a pro-life country doctor of decidedly conservative social views—was and is anathema to Team Suck.
What would the “Smearbund” do without David Duke? No smear campaign is complete without dragging him into it. No matter what the subject—the Iraq war, the Mearsheimer and Walt book, affirmative action—if you take the politically incorrect position, according to the neocons, then you’re marching shoulder-to shoulder with the former Klansman and professional nut-job.
And sure enough, the Kirchick piece takes the Paul newsletter to task for supposedly having “kind words” for Duke. Yet, if you go and read what the newsletter says about Duke, it is clear the author was merely saying Duke’s success is due to his opposition to affirmative action and the welfare state: indeed, Kirchick cites a passage (without citing it in full) in which Duke is taken to task for his lack of a “consistent package of freedom.” Yet the willfully ignorant Radley Balko, another Cato type, avers: “I simply can’t imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for David Duke. That a newsletter with Paul’s name did just that demands an explanation from Paul.”
The explanation, which would be apparent if Balko had actually cited what is written, is that these weren’t sympathetic words for Duke, per se, or his political ambitions, but for the issues—legitimate issues—that he raised (and exploited) in his Louisiana campaign. After all, libertarians such as Paul reject affirmative action, racial set-asides, and all other forms of state-enforced special treatment for “minorities” precisely because they oppose racism, or any form of collectivism.
By the way, libertarians also oppose so-called civil rights legislation that outlaws discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability, because it violates the rights of property-owners. William F. Buckley Jr. famously derided libertarian (and “right-wing populist”) opposition to such legislation as valorizing Lester Maddox’s refusal to “serve a Negro a plate of pork chops.” Buckley’s quip surely underscored the venality and small-mindedness of Maddox and his ilk—and yet, lost in all this, is the reality of the libertarian position, which is that people have the right to be venal, small-minded, and, yes, viciously, stupidly, horribly wrong, provided they don’t initiate the use of force.
The utter dishonesty of the Reason crowd, when it comes to this issue, is breathtaking. Balko laments that
“Unfortunately, the quotes pulled from these newsletters will for many only confirm those worst stereotypes of what he represents. The good ideas Paul represents then get sullied by association. The Ann Althouses of the world, for example, are now only more certain that opponents of federal anti-discrimination laws should have to prove that they aren’t racist before being taken seriously.”
It’s all about impressing Ms. Althouse, the notoriously dyspeptic and cranky lawyer-blogger-know-it-all.
Gee, that’s the first time in a long time I’ve heard a single one of the Reasonites declare their opposition to anti-discrimination laws: perhaps it is the first mention of it in the online supplement to the magazine. Because, of course, such a position is starkly counterposed to today’s au courant political correctness, an atmosphere in which all criticism of, say, Barack Obama is typified as racist agitation. The fear of being branded a “racist” is so all-pervasive that it has had an appreciable effect on the polls: exit polls in New Hampshire foreshadowed an Obama-sweep that never materialized. Democratic primary voters were ashamed to say they hadn’t voted for Obama: talk about white liberal guilt!
The charges leveled at Paul by his accusers both the neocons, and the “libertarian” and leftist enablers, are therefore especially toxic this election season. Yet when one examines Paul’s alleged “hate crimes,” I can come up with only four sentences, lifted out of context, that are out of bounds:
“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”
“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
These statements are offensive, and I’d bet my bottom dollar that Ron Paul not only didn’t write them, but never read.
(One might quibble about the “fleet-footed” quip: it seems more like a compliment, albeit a left-handed one, rather than an insult—but never mind.) It isn’t Paul’s style or voice. In any case, when we examine the rest of the statements Kirchick cites, in context, it becomes immediately apparent that the “libertarian” witch-hunters out for Paul’s scalp didn’t even bother to read the newsletters in their entirety before they broke into a chorus of denunciations. A former beltway wonk has published an excellent chronology of the various postings by the Reason/Cato/neocon crowd after the Kirchick piece was published and the pdf files of the newsletters were posted by Pajamas Media, on January 8. He makes it clear that what he calls the “Orange Line Mafia” didn’t have time to go through and read the material in the newsletters before firing their fusillades:
“The Ron Paul Newsletters are voluminous and even a small fraction of them could not possibly be read in the very few hours that passed between the posting of the actual newsletters (the afternoon of the 8th) and the smear campaigners’ posts (also the afternoon of the 8th). All of these ‘hit and run’ blog posts, except Kirchick’s original, must then be based on Kirchik’s piece rather than on actual reading and analysis of the newsletters. Clearly the purpose of these posts was not to initiate a thoughtful discussion of the newsletters, it was to spin libertarian voters on the most crucial election day short of the November general elections.”
It was a rush job, and a sloppy one at that, because, on closer examination, the material that is being called “racist” turns out to be no such thing. When we go to the source of the above, and other examples cited by Kirchick, we come to a rather conventionally conservative analysis of the Rodney King riots of 1992: the rioters are condemned, the Koreans are valorized, and the culture of black entitlement and its relation to the welfare state are delineated in no uncertain terms. Nothing, in short, that would be out of place in any conservative magazine. The above-cited phrase about the enemy being defined “by the color of their skin” is here placed in its original context:
“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.”
In context, the author was clearly saying that people will draw unfair conclusions – that racism will increase—as a direct consequence of the Los Angeles riots. How, exactly, is that “racist”? If anything, it’s a warning that the sociological consequences of statist policies – and the failure of the elites to address them—will lead to the rise of the David Dukes of this world, if more responsible politicians don’t face them head on. In linking to the source, one wonders if Pajamas Media isn’t really trying to help the Paul campaign win over conservative Republicans – because I don’t think many would disagree with much of it. Another phrase that has been lifted out of context—“only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions—placed in context reads quite differently:
“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.”
The idea that people are not to be treated as representatives of racial groups is the antithesis of bigotry. While the author of the above is most emphatically anti-racist, he is also anti-looter, anti-violence, and justifiably angry at the sight of white motorists being pulled out of their cars by thugs of whatever color. The author of TNR’s hit piece was a mere babe when the Los Angeles riots scorched the national consciousness, and his reaction to the description of the rioters—and the circumstances surrounding it—is untouched by either experience or understanding.
The crudeness of Kirchick’s cut-and-paste method shows how little he cares for the concept of truth. In the context of a discussion about Paul alleged antipathy to blacks, he writes that a “June 1991 entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, ‘Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.’ ‘This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,’ the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author—presumably Paul—wrote, ‘I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.’”
As James Fulford points out, however:
“People seem to think that he was calling blacks ‘animals.’ This was actually the Mount Pleasant riots, the largest in DC since the 1968 Martin Luther King riots, and it was immigrant Hispanics rioting against the African-American city government, so that’s not what what’s going on here, it’s just a normal headline like ‘Inmates Take Over Asylum.’”
But what matters the color of the rioters’ skin? Are we not allowed to say what is, or must fear reduce our language to strings of euphemism? Is every word to be examined and measured in terms of its political correctness quotient? Thus do self-righteous little prigs of Kirchick’s ilk seek to define what’s legitimate and what’s not.
It’s all downhill from there. Kirchick goes after Paul on the basis of his association with the scholars at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a brilliant writer by the name of Thomas E. Woods, whose Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is a runaway bestseller among conservatives and is issued by Regnery, the Fox News of the publishing world. Again, nothing out of the conservative mainstream – a point that will no doubt horrify the readers of The New Republic. But that’s not many people, these days.
The idea that opposition to Lincoln idolatry is evidence of “racism” is absurd, as any serious person would immediately recognize. Is anyone really surprised that Paul doesn’t idolize an American President who locked up his political opponents, repealed the writ of habeas corpus, and closed down opposition newspapers? Give me a break. It’s not for nothing that the academic branch of the Lincoln cult is headquartered over at Claremont College, where the more extreme neocons hold sway: they openly admire his authoritarian methods That may be news to what’s left of The New Republic’s readers, but I doubt much of anyone else finds this beyond the pale, never mind proof of “racism.”.
Kirchick is shocked—shocked!—by the idea that secession can be a legitimate means to achieve one’s political objectives. He equates this with “support for the Confederacy” – but then one has to ask how the Soviet empire imploded so quickly and relatively bloodlessly. Wasn’t it because individuals, as well as the captive nations, seceded from the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”?
Kirchick pays tribute to his “libertarian” collaborators, averring “The people surrounding the von Mises Institute—including Paul—may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine.” They, of course, would never endorse the idea of secession. Or would they?
In any case, there are some pretty odd formulations in Kirchcik’s essay: “To be fair,” he concedes,
“The newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were ‘the only people to act like real Americans,\’ it explained, ‘mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.’”
One wonders on what other basis the author of this newsletter piece could have praised the Asian merchants of Los Angeles—just because they’re Asian? Yet why should someone merit accolades for what they are, rather than on account of the content of their character? To do so would be—dare I say it?—racist.
Another odd touch to this slapped-together smear job is that Kirchick and his pals point to the Paul newsletter’s claim that the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party was involved in helping to trigger the Los Angeles riots as yet more proof of “conspiracism,” but as the RCP’s Wikipedia entry puts it:
“The RCP upheld the 1992 uprising in Los Angeles and nationally as a “rebellion” in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdicts. Then-LAPD chief Daryl Gates alleged that the RCP was involved in the riots. Los Angeles has long been one of the RCP’s larger and more active branches.”
I suppose little Jamie Kirchick, who was something like four years old when the riot occurred, knows more about what happened than the chief of police. Or is Daryl Gates, too, a “conspiracist”? More malarkey from Monsieur Kirchick. (For what it’s worth, David Horowitz concurs.)
The rhetoric aimed at Martin Luther King is really odd, considering that the Ron Paul campaign is launching its latest “money bomb” on the civil rights leader’s birthday. In addition, Paul himself has praised MLK as an exemplar of nonviolent civil disobedience. It is true, however, as the newsletter avers, that King had some connections to Communist Party members, and had the full support of the CP. Without the Communists, there would have been hardly any civil rights movement, especially in the early years. In addition, the Rev. King was indeed a philanderer of epic proportions, as are many strong-willed individuals of the male persuasion. Why be prudish about it? Suddenly the “libertines” of swingin’ Reason magazine are blushing virgins, but, somehow, it’s not a very convincing act.
According to Daniel Koffler, a former Reason staffer now at Pajamas Media, whose compendium of Paul’s un-PC “pullquotes” was posted shortly after the Kirchick piece went up, the charge of “conspiracism” is supposedly buttressed by a statement in the newsletter to the effect that “Hillary Clnton is the most dangerous politician in America” – in which case, all the GOP presidential candidates are guilty. Are we supposed to take this stuff seriously?
As evidence of Paul’s alleged “homophobia,” Kirchick whines that the newsletter writers termed AIDS a “politically protected disease” – and yet that is the same view held by the late Randy Shilts, an openly gay reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, in his book on the epidemic and the political response to it, And The Band Played On. Shilts, who who died of AIDS in the 1980s, describes, at length, how political correctness and fear of “homophobia” delayed the closing of the San Francisco bathhouses that were incubating the epidemic and spread the virus far and wide before the gay community began to wake up.
As addle-brained as this tack is, Kirchcikt gets even sillier:
“Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that ‘gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense,’ adding: ‘[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.” Also, “they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.’”
As much as I, a gay guy, hate to admit it, the statement that “gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense” rings true to anyone who lives in what Herb Caean used to call “Baghdad-by-the-Bay” and knows anything about the sexual practices prevalent in the gay community. Priapism as a lifestyle and even a social philosophy is the norm, not the exception, and while that may offend the delicate sensibilities of those rather more priggish homosexuals who want to take the sex out of homosexuality – well, that’s just tough, now isn’t it? And not very realistic.
Furthermore, it has been widely reported that some AIDS victims had actually sought out the disease and refer to it as “bug-chasing” and “giving the gift”—albeit some years after the newsletter described such behavior. Kirchick, a sometime gay activist, has got to know about this. Not that he’ll ever admit it.
Speaking of “hate crimes,” yet more alleged “evidence” that Paul is a gay-basher is the newsletter’s attacks on hate crimes legislation – which, again, is a pretty standard conservative Republican (and libertarian position). Are the editors of Reason magazine agreeing with Kirchick that opposition to such legislation is de facto “homophobia”? Just asking ….
As for the piece on “I Miss the Closet,” now that’s a sentiment I admit to feeling with increasing intensity over the years, as homosexuality devolved into “gayness” and a lifestyle morphed into a political movement—a movement, moreover, that demanded complete ideological conformity on questions ranging from the origins of homosexuality (politically correct answer: it’s genetic) to the desirability of a national “civil rights” bill forbidding “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation. To disagree with the leaders of this “movement” is to court the charge of “homophobia.”
Kirchick is perturbed by Paul’s talk of an “industrial-banking-political elite” – any criticism of bankers, and their federally-insured con-game, is “conspiracism” and probably “anti-Semitic,” too. When the banks get bailed out, us plebeians had better not complain, on pain of facing Kirchick’s wrath. Worse, by Kirchickian standards, Paul is “promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills” – a charge that seems slightly comical, coming as it does during the most precipitous decline of the currency since the phrase “not worth a continental” was coined.
I really can’t bear to examine much more of Kirchick’s farrago of falsehoods: it’s like wading through waist-high muck without your pants on. I have to say, however, that this supposedly “devastating” attack on the Paul campaign is devastating, all right – to the author’s reputation as a credible reporter. His writing is crude, his manner slapdash, and his abilities seem to consist primarily of the artful use of ellipses. Intellectually dishonest, inauthentic in its outrage, and unintentionally humorous at times – don’t you realize that it’s a hate-crime to criticize Kirchick’s boss?—TNR’s attempt to portray the avuncular country doctor who preaches liberty, the Norman Thomas of libertarianism, as some sort of neo-Nazi is ludicrous – yet the neocons and their “libertarian” allies persist. Why?
“If a person cared about liberty,” asks the blogger who calls himself “a former beltway wonk,” “why would they be eager to mindlessly repeat smears about the most popular libertarian candidate in decades on the very day of the most crucial ‘king-making’ primary in the United States?”
It’s no mystery, really: Ron Paul is, in many ways, the exact opposite of the Beltway fake-“libertarians.” He’s a populist: they suck up to power, he challenges the powers-that-be; they go along to get along – he has never gone along with the conventional wisdom as defined by the arbiters of political correctness, Left and Right. And most of all, he’s an avowed enemy of the neoconservatives, whom he constantly names as the main danger to peace and liberty – while the Beltway’s tame “libertarians” are in bed with them, often literally as well as figuratively.
In short, the Beltway fake-libs are in bed with the State, and all its works, while contenting themselves with the role of court jester and would-be “reformer” of the system. As long as they don’t challenge anything too fundamental to the continuation of the Welfare-Warfare State, the pet libertines of the neocon-led GOP “coalition” are deemed “urbane” and “cosmopolitan,” the highest compliment the Georgetown party circuit can bestow. Once they begin rocking the boat, as Paul insists on doing, they become fair game for the Smearbund.
Another major reason for the antipathy to Paul coming from these quarters is his uncompromising opposition to U.S. foreign policy. A good half of the Reason crowd were pro-war, some ambivalent, and a powerful minority within the Cato Institute rallied to the cause of “liberating” Iraq, or was at least sympathetic to the idea of “exporting” free market liberalism at gunpoint, once the war was a fait accompli. Reason itself took no position on the most important question of the day, I’m told because of the influence of big contributors. And now I learn, from inside sources, that Reason senior editor Brian Doherty, author of the monumental Radicals for Capitalism, a “freewheeling” history of the American libertarian movement, is in danger of being fired because he’s too pro-Paul.
The most shameful aspect of this episode is the active role played by the Orange Line Mafia in the smearing of Paul. The Reason/Cato lynch mob is really threatened by the existence of a mass libertarian movement—because it’s a movement over which they have no control. They no longer get to define libertarianism to the general public, and most importantly, the media: who needs them, when we have a much more appealing and successful salesman for liberty?
Besides, it’s embarrassing for them: while they’re begging our rulers to allow us just a little freedom, and timidly seek to trim the empire around its rougher edges, Paul and the movement he’s spawned seek a much more radical application of libertarian principles: a consistent anti-statism on the home front, and a call to dismantle the empire before it dismantles the last vestiges of our old republic.
Look, I’ve been critical of the Paul campaign—see here—and I have to say I have my issues with the way the operation is being run, and I know I’m not alone in that. I would say that the antiwar message has not been pounded home, and that their strategy—particularly their California strategy – shows a complete lack of understanding of how to get delegates under the new, congressional district-based allocation system. Another major mistake: failing to make opposition to the war and the new imperialism the centerpiece of Paul’s television ads. When the candidate gets up there on stage at the debates and speaks in his own voice, from the heart, he nearly always puts the issue of war and peace front and center. The campaign does Paul a great disservice, however, when they water down his message for some imaginary political gain that has yet to materialize and probably won’t.
Yet these criticisms are minor: the overwhelming reality is that the Paul campaign has put libertarianism on the political map as never before—and the Orange Line Mafia just can’t stand it.. Real libertarians can have but one answer to the fifth columnists in their midst, the neocon-enablers and Vichy “libertarians” who hang on every word harpy-like shriek that comes out of Anne Althouse’s gullet: Screw them, and all their works.
Comments
Bravo, Justin! Thanks for providing the context for those quotes, and revealing the truth about this smear job. I shudder to think what the War Party would do if Dr. Paul were WINNING primaries. I fear it might look a lot like what happened to Mrs. Bhutto....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
All over the world smearing techniques are successfully used against any political candidate who is an economic nationalist - a very old-fashioned position to be sure in the globalised world, but permissable surely. Nope. As soon as anyone looks like attracting grassroots support - like Ron Paul - out come the allegations of racism, homophobia, globophobia, economic voodooism, etc. Ps, do you really have small but alert staff? How sweet.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In the 1950s “McCarthyism”, right or wrong, led to “guilt by association” charges against many of the left. Some deserved it, some didn’t. In the reaction to McCarthyism we have ditched the anti-communist message but enshrined the method. It’s now an all purpose political tool. We live in an era of post-anticommunist McCarthyism, and now it’s a way of life.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have to take exception to the historical inaccuracy of your comments about Martin Luther King’s alleged Communist associations. I don’t know what you’re basing that on (you don’t say, and don’t provide your usual source links), so I’ll assume it’s based on the usual canard about King attending a Communist “training” and the photo of him and a well-known Communist Party member sitting within a few feet (horrors!) of each other. The fact is, the school provided training in non-violence, not Marxism-Leninism, and the people who ran it had no connection with the Communist Party.
Or perhaps you are referring to his close adviser, Bayard Rustin, who left the Communist party in 1939. I can’t tell; again, you didn’t say on what basis you made your claim.
You also claim the Communist Party played a major role in the civil rights movement. If you read what has become the standard for scholarship on precisely that period, “The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement,” you’ll find no support for that notion, especially for the “early” movement in the southern states.
The fact that the Communist Party “fully supported” King and the civil rights movement means nothing. They also “fully supported” John Kennedy’s election in 1960 and even Joe McCarthy vs. Robert LaFollette Jr. in the Wisconsin Republican primary that ultimately led to the former’s unfortunate elevation to the U.S. Senate.
King, Kennedy and McCarthy are no more responsible for the Communist Party’s support of their political careers and causes than Ron Paul is responsible for David Duke’s support of his.
I’m also mystified by your citation of the Wikipedia entry for the Revolutionary Communist Party. It “upheld” the riots as a “rebellion”? What does that mean? By itself, it doesn’t sound like they instigated anything, and on the surface it seems simply to mean they supported the “rebellion” during or after the fact—whether from near or afar, I can’t tell from that quote.
And as far as rebutting anyone with the testimony of former LA Police Chief Daryl Gates, all I can say is, you’re putting your money on the wrong horse there. Whatever his personal racial attitudes, he led the racist institution known as the LAPD, and never thought it a problem that people like Mark Furman populated its ranks.
And no, I don’t think you or Ron Paul are racists, by a long shot. (I may even vote for him in the Wisconsin primary.) You both, however, show some insensitive blind spots when it comes to the Civil War and the slave power known as the Confederacy. But that’s another subject and would take too long to discuss in this space.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Peter Abbott:
I do indeed link to a source for MLK’s Commie connections: the FBI files on him, which are linked above on the word “connections.”
For the influence of the Communist party in, for example, the northern civil rights movement, go here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HZ3XCz-LrngC&pg=PA63&dq;="communist+party"+"civil+rights+movement"&lr;=&ei=0meQR4f4NIvUsgPy8JhF&sig=3OrA733zVZdk3TuwECvM12ZA0x4#PPA62,M1
For the seminal influence of the CPUSA on the civil rights movement in the South, go here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=t3sf0wGF-uMC&pg=RA1-PA111&dq;="communist+party"+"civil+rights+movement"+south&lr;=&ei=Y2iQR4PpK6CQtwPO1NQ_&sig=UW2-BSzPQierYIKrls4cPdEwYV8
I personally saw the RCP in the streets of San Francisco and Berkeley during Rodney King riot week: we had our own mini-version here in SF, and LA had a much bigger presence of RCPers, with red flags flying.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin, this from Wikipedia regarding Ron Paul.
Excelling in track and field, he graduated from Dormont High School in 1953 with honors. He had a best mark in the 100-yard dash of 9.7 seconds[11] at a time when the national high school record for that event was 9.4 seconds;[12] as a junior, he was the 220-yard dash state champion[13] and placed second in the 440-yard run.[9] He also was on the wrestling team, played football and baseball, and was student council president.[9][10] After surgery on a knee injury, he gave up track and took up swimming as a form of therapy.
We are supposed to believe the fleet footed Dr. Paul uttered the qoute from above?
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
He was three tenths of a second off the state record!!! Ha. Take that Kirchik.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
correction, he was three tenths of a second off the national record.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
I’ve followed your “Behind the Headlines” column off an on for a long time. As embarrassing as it might sound, I was a fence sitter when it came to a lot of the big decisions, like should America invade Iraq. This is despite reading your incredibly cogent arguments. Some of us are really just that thick. (We read without really comprehending.)
So what happened? Well, during the second Republican debate, this guy Ron Paul, whom I knew absolutely next to nothing about, was told to shut up and apologize when he put out some arguments like I was accustomed to getting from your column. I thought to myself, has it come to that? You can’t even put out these arguments without being told to shut up and apologize? I knew then that there was something seriously wrong, and it was time to stop fence sitting. After finally taking the time to really study what’s happening, I became and still am an avid supporter of Paul’s views on foreign policy (and yours).
The attacks on Ron Paul by the New Republic were odious and foul. Thank you for putting them in context and explaining the background. I think you are exactly right in your characterization of the beltway libertarians. Oddly enough, reading the attack pieces in Reason, I got this impression.
Thank you for writing this, I hope it does a great deal to help Paul’s campaign in fending off such unnecessary and viscous attacks from the very people who should be doing their upmost to support him.
P.S. My interest in Paul has even spurred me to reading Murray Rothbard. It is tragic I had not taken the time to read him sooner.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Though you got a little hysterical about Ron Paul’s ad on excluding students from nations that sponsor terrorism, you have more than redeemed yourself here.
Putting the worst Paul newsletter quotations in context made their utterance more understandable, if still not entirely excusable. You also excelled in showing that many of the so-called horrible excerpts were simply politically incorrect factual statements, the type we’re not to utter, or even think, anymore.
This is an apologia you won’t have to be apologetic about. Heckuva job.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Powerful refutation. Acerbic as usual, love that style.
The old pic.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am so glad you wrote this.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin
You justifiably accuse others of being “in bed with the State”, of failing to “challenge anything too fundamental to the continuation of the Welfare-Warfare State”, and (in relation to Iraq) of taking “no position on the most important question of the day”. However, I wonder if similar charges cant be levelled at you.
The events of 911 have been used by the Bush administration to justify their subsequent imperial misadventures. And yet, as I am sure you are well aware, there is overwhelming evidence that the official conspiracy theory for how the events of 911 occurred is false and that 911 involved insiders. This, of course, makes a thorough investigation of 911 crucial to an exposure of the corrupt forces manipulating the American state. Accordingly, one might think that revealing the truth about 911 would be a major interest of your web site Anti-War. But no, aside from an occasional snide comment by yourself directed at those who question the US government’s version, there is no mention of 911. Reportedly, articles questioning the 911 story, by at least one regular contributor, are declined by Anti-War. Similarly, e-mails to you, from myself and others, pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in the official story are never answered. I cant believe that you lack the intellect to see through the official story.
Are you for real or are you another gatekeeper?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This erudite analysis of the smearing of Dr. Paul is much appreciated. It is more learned than my own. The two are not mutually exclusive. My own thinking starts with the old Roman query, Cui bono? Richard Nixon updated with, “Follow the money.”
Dr. Paul threatens to bring the question of foreign aid into the national debate. This might call to account Israel’s receipt of billions annually from strapped American taxpayers. This leaves aside the blood of American boys who are not Zionists. (Can any of the knowledgeable readers of Takimag name a single neocon or a family member of a neocon who has ever deigned to don an American uniform? I cannot). It is the billions sent to Israel each year that motivates the smear. There must be no debate on the efficacy to Americans of these outlays.
The smearbund almost to a man receives funding from the Jewish sate and its allied think tanks. Many think that much of the funding of these organizations is really laundered foreign aid recycled to drum up more aid. Tax dollars sent to Israel are unique in that they are not audited despite the fact that by every standard Israel is one of the most corrupt societies in the world.
In short, the mud being lobbed at Dr. Paul can be viewed to be in no small measure about taking money from you and me and giving to relatives and friends of them. Further, it is about shedding Christian blood to advance a racist agenda of Israel.. And isn’t that what the state is all about?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Yay. Great to see you sticking up for Ron Paul when it actually requires some courage and faith. Another reason you are the only columnist I don’t forget to read.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Raimondo,
I’d been waiting to hear ‘the other side of this story’ from someone prominent within the movement. Someone who was there (unlike myself) during the power-struggle for the LP which also informs and underscores the vehemence of their attacks.
Thanks for this. Not only have the beltway-libs gone after Dr. Paul but that has morphed into an attack on Lew Rockwell and all that he and the others around him (including yourself) have built.
Why is that?
Well, you’ve already answered that. I came to the movement not knowing anything of the past power struggles. All I know is that LRC/Antiwar wing of the movement were building something great and the others weren’t. That’s why you/they get my money when they need it and sometimes Lew gets my work to publish and the LP/Reason/Cato crowd gets derision at best and the cold-shoulder at worst.
This whole smear-attack was presaged by David Weigel back in May ( http://reason.com/news/show/120387.html )
who lamentedt he day that these newsletters would come out.
Again, why?
Because he would be one of the enablers of their dissemination, that’s why. He and the rest of Reason’s staff.
That this kind of petty squabbling is still going on is the only thing putting a damper on the entirety of Dr. Paul’s run for the presidency. It’s beyond sad.
Thanks again for helping to put things in context and providing a reasonable (all puns intended) counter-point to the Kirchick drive-by.
Ta,
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin… wow. I had been discussing the need for an article like this with several friends over the past couple of days. You wrote almost exactly what I would have, if I’d had the time.
I’ve got a few further thoughts which burbled up to the front of my mind, but, not having read the newsletters, they are only guesses. I’ll post one here:
Was the comment about the riots ending only when the blacks went to pick up their welfare checks a lament about the sorry effects of welfare on the poor? If so, isn’t the real racist the one who forbids any rational discussion of this situation, and consequently any chance of repairing the policies fostering it? The author of the newsletter could be enabling a beneficial change, but the PC patrol tries to squelch that. Niiiice.
My idea was a complete analysis of every quote, in context; perhaps that would still help, but perhaps your treatment here will illuminate the matter sufficiently to close the door. It will certainly do a lot to soothe the concerns of many. Good job.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You are aware that Dr. Paul has denounced the statements in the newsletters, and said he absolutely disagrees with them, right? So, it seems Dr. Paul himself disagrees with your argument that the statements are just being taken out of context.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you for this article.
One other issue that I think is important, that you do touch on, but don’t emphasize, is the historical context. For example, this is when Giuliani’s NYPD was Profiling black men, and largely ignoring civil rights. A quick check of the Archives of NYC papers show many accusations of Racism. Further, two cases stand out - Diallou, and Louima, the latter Sodomized with a plunger and tortured by some of Giuliani’s cops - saying, this is giuliani time. Crime in the inner cities was a serious problem then (look at NYC statistics compared to today) and clinton reacted by putting more cops into the cities, with the loss of civil rights that often brings with it - basically probable cause became -yopu have your hands in your pocket, so I can search you.
To get an idea of the impact on culture, the “Death Wish” movies were popular during this era, Heck, the politically correct word was “black” and not African American. Racial language has changed a great deal since the 1985 -1995.
And somehow, a few people have claimed that giuliani represents the “Libertarian” wing of the party because he has gay friends.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Also, those durn Beltway libertarians at Reason had “Scenes from the Ron Paul Revolution” as their cover story last month, with Dr Paul’s picture large and in charge on the front cover. Until this story broke, people had been complaining in the comments section of their blog about them being *too* blatantly pro-Paul. To paint them as somehow being opposed to him all along is ludicrous.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You’re on the case as usual, Mr. Raimondo. Thanks for a great article.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks for a great article. I’ve been wanting to write something just like this, only I haven’t had time. I’m neck deep trying to get Dr. Paul elected.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think this shows Raimondo has fallen into Paul’s cult of personality like so many of his followers.
Ron Paul allowed vile content into his newsletter and is lying/trying to mislead the public about who wrote it and whether he knew about it.
I know the passion Ron Paul inspires in his supporters but too many people have the blinders on, and they are taking this out on the messenger.
I think it says alot for Reason’s integrity that after being unashamedly pro-Paul all summer that they want to know the facts and stay objective.
Apparently, for too many Paul supporters, turning a blind eye to deception and publishing biased propaganda is just fine as long as it benefits the good doctor.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Admittedly, I was impatiently awaiting this column from you, Mr.Raimondo, and then I read about your mother’s passing.
I’ll make amends at your next antiwar fund-raiser.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Duckman, you’re boring me. Raimondo refuted everything you typed. Care to read the whole thing and think for yourself-- or do you enjoy having somebody pull a string in your back? Justin, excellent post.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It troubles me just a little to see this squabbling among libertarians. I guess if we all got along then we would not be libertarian, would we?
I actually see value to what are today the three tiers of the popular libertarian movement: Reason, CATO, and LewRockwell.com. I have sympathies for all three and at times I find a stronger attraction to one or the other depending on the issue.
Each appeals to a different crowd and has different goals. All three agree more than they disagree, but each chooses to beat certain drums louder than others. I find that CATO, for example, is not pro-war, but because they have not chosen the war as their primary focus it makes strongly anti-war libertarians suspicious.
I think that this kind of diversity (that word should not make me flinch) shows that the movement is strong and healthy. In fact, I think it is necessary for the continuation of libertarian ideas.
I used to wish that we had a libertarian Rush Limbaugh on the air. But after thoughtful reflection, it is probably best that we don’t.
Certainly we do not wish for some sort of libertarian Taliban, do we?
As always, excellent article Justin!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
must have been a long flight. anyway, the hostile tone here is silly. I have defended ron paul over these cahrges and have the utmost confidence in him as a person but not all his supporters are paleos (I’m not for one) and don’t feel at home with banter that sounds like a bunch of old southern guys trying to be macho. It’s like “Yeah we get it your “politically incorrect”. don’t you have anything else?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m sorry for your loss Mr. Raimondo! It is nice to hear another perspective on this issue other than Beltway Libertarians trying to purge Lew Rockwell and Mises from the world. They are trying to kill Ron Paul’s message. They claim that they don’t want the word “Libertarian” associated with racism.
I’m shocked that the campaign wasn’t better prepared for these newsletters. The lack of specifics makes it look like they have something to hide.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Having been an avid reader of Reason magazine since its early days, I knew they were losing it when they moved to the beltway from Santa Monica. It takes a man of strong character - like Ron Paul - to withstand the corrupting influences of the Washington insider crowd.
Rather than bringing the libertarian ideas to Washington, the parasitic nature of Washington invaded the libertarian writing. I knew the end would come, when Cathy Young took over. The last straw of respectability fell, when I heard last Tuesday an NPR interview with a hack working for Reason, in which he was explaining the Ron Paul movement and political direction to the listener. It was deliberately designed to portray Ron Paul as a nutjob.
I guess it is time to start a replacement magazine.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sir:
I went and read the newsletters for myself; I read the so-called racist and biggoted remarks in their original context. I do have to say that you are spot on in your comments regarding them.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The notions that I ever had any association with Suck magazine, or that Brian Doherty’s job at reason is in any way threatened, are both lies.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Fuck you, Welch. I know for a fact that you threatened Doherty. As for Suck magazine, I guess thinking you had any kind of job at all was a real error.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You know nothing of the sort, cuz it ain’t remotely true. Keep trying, though.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Regarding Mat Welch’s association with _Suck_, we regret the factual error and a correction has been made in the text.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Wow. Great writing. Thanks so much.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Been waiting for this. Nice job Justin!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
With respect to secession, as Tom Fleming’s piece in the current “Chronicles” makes clear, it very much depends on WHO (including for what reason) is seceding from WHAT. So I have my list of seceders, including
Ukraine - good
Kosovo - bad
others will have theirs.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Stabbed in the back by Reason.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This Kirchik guy reminds me of the conservative kid who learned to see the world thru the windows of a mini-van while his mother carted him around listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Forget the little parrots name…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read about your mourning Justin and I send my condolences.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Why doesn’t the old media mention John McCain’s racism during the SC debate? John McCain was blatantly racist in the SC debate, read it here:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1084.html
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like “America Deceived’ from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Click to flag this comment as abusive
One thing seems to be forgotten in all this. All the anti-Ron Paul groups have one thing in common.
The Kochs bankroll all of them. They give money to Cato, Reason, the Institute for Humane Studies, and maybe even the Atlas Society (or whatever it’s called this week).
Anything that isn’t controlled by the Kochs has been supportive (or at least neutral) of Ron Paul--Foundation for Economic Education, Future of Freedom Foundation, antiwar.com, Liberty magazine, Independent Institute.
Could it simply be that Charles and David Koch simply don’t want to support anything that they don’t control? Have the Kochs also noticed just how irrelevant they are becoming, which has been happening since they walked out of the convention in 1983?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin-
This is by far the most comprehensive defense I’ve seen against the Kirchik attack. Your writing, as always, is brilliantly organized.
Daniel
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
The reason the Libertarians are attacking Ron Paul is very simple. They are running a candidate for their own party AGAINST Ron Paul, knowing full well that the majority of Libertarians are already supporting Ron Paul instead.
This smear started not long after Ron Paul refused to run for their partys nomination.
Their strategy has been to use the Ron Paul revolution by going to meetups, writing articles, etc.. to promote their party and recruit new libertarians, and then start hitting Ron Paul with all they got, and hope to convince people to vote for their guy instead. The libertarians in my group, for example, (not all, but many) brought donation forms for the LP and forms for declaring yourself a libertarian to every meeting, until I told them to stop. Then they simply stopped coming.
Many were not interested at all of supporting Ron Paul unless he ran in their party. They are no different than the partisan hacks we have in the R and D.
If I vote third party, it will likely be with the Constitution party. I will never give my vote to the libertarians after this crap.
The one chance we have had in a long long time to actually get our country back, and they are trying to derail it simply for partisan reasons.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin, that was pure brilliance!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I thank you Justin, for putting this out so eloquently. You are a gift to humankind, truly.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you Justin. Beautiful job.
As a Libertarian I never cared about the Reason/Cato dispute with Rockwell. Occasionally they had good things to say, although they were far to war mongering for me.
Their hit piece however and Kirchick’s have done more to destroy their own credibility and I hope the market takes them apart completely for it.
I have canceled Reason magazine and I have called several others to do the same.
Since this junk has been tossed at Ron Paul every time he has ever run for office, I find it particularly disgusting that Reason and TNR would publish this junk now. Their motives cannot be called anything but evil and they have proven themselves willing to throw the entire libertarian movement under the bus to settle some petty dispute they have with someone over table manners.
You have done a wonderful job here and I thank you much.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The notion of a “Beltway Libertarian” is about as counterintuitive a bit of nonsense as a “Puritan Dominatrix”.
Anyone who is so bold as to suggest shuttering as much of Washington as Dr. Paul suggests is bound to be met by all manner of opposition by that bloated district’s legions of aspirers on the government make. They don’t know any better and are simply defending their job as they are entitled to do.
The Libertarians of Washington would be right beside their brethren of K Street in the ramparts and they would be joined by the party apparatchiks of both sides as they fought off any forces attempting to choke this government back to a useful size. The fact that the only thing they’ve gotten so far is the newsletter imbroglio is remarkable.... if one didn’t trust that Mr. Paul seems a good, straightforward man and an authentic champion of the Constitution and Limited Government.
The Leftys must really be hosed...seeing this unglamorous man steal some of their young...what a riot.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I had a trial subscription a couple of years ago and they didn’t pass. I realized that they were establishment right down the line and never gave it a second thought. Excellent job exposing these scum.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Concerning Ron Paul’s “California strategy,” it was singled out by a San Francisco newspaper a few months ago as the only campaign that seemed to understand the news rules—going door-to-door in liberal districts with few Republican voters, because those districts get just as many delegates as conservative districts with many more Republican voters.
But that was probably referring to the grassroots efforts, uncoordinated with the national campaign. California has been the number one source of Ron Paul campaign contributions, and has thousands of volunteers statewide.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you, Justin, for this incisive work.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nick Gillespie, the previous editor over at Reason Magazine, he left in the last week or so to go work on Reason TV and he can be reached at 202 986-0916.
I decided to speak to him rather than the current editor because the new guy is so new he doesn’t even have his voicemail system set up, so I doubted he would have published these particular articles.
I spoke to Mr. Gillespie (sp?) and he is a very nasty man. He was shouting at me and frankly sounded off balance. To me, he sounded just like a schizophrenic who attacks things you haven’t said because he imagines them in his head. He seems unnerved by the fact that Reason readers are not pleased with his hit piece which he tried to defend as “excellent journalism”.
He refused to let me get a word in edgewise, preferring instead to attack me for wanting to know some actual facts instead of just the nasty fluff he wrote.
He kept screaming that he had sources, sources, sources. When I stated I needed more to evaluate the possible motives behind these sources he said that was an outlandish request. (Funny how courts don’t think so and eliminate all hearsay evidence no matter who spoke it, except of course under very narrow circumstances such as dying declarations and the like.)
He then told me he was a huge Ron Paul supporter - boy, with friends like those…
I can only give you my impressions, but this man sounds as if he is unraveling and becoming completely unhinged.
Mind you, I was totally pleasant but did tell him I thought his magazine had done libertarians in general a disservice.
He appeared to totally lose it at that one. His voice raised and was shaky, he couldn’t wait to attack me for having that opinion and he demanded that Ron Paul, the man he supposedly supports name names and hang people out to dry. Apparently, he is not pleased with Ron Paul’s response and thus has decided that he has the right to attack him until he answers him personally and in a manner that he will find acceptable. Boy, what an ego.
This man exhibited signs consistent with megalomania and his tone was consistent with mania.
He couldn’t stop demanding my number so I would be careful if you were to call him. It is not clear what he will do at this point. We have seen what he does to Ron Paul when Dr. Paul doesn’t answer things the way he wants.
Reason TV? I guess I have something else I can boycott.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oops, sorry, wrong number, that was the magazine number. The number for Reason TV is 202-249-1751 where Nick Gillespie, the editor of the magazine as of last week now works.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Excellent reply to the Paul smear!
Similar points, additional info, here:
“Ron Paul Is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_w__080116_ron_paul_is_not_a_bi.htm
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Raimondo,
Thank you for your well-written piece. I must admit that even though I have supported Ron Paul through this smear campaign I until know did not fully comprehend the level of spin that the New Republic put on this situation.
As a left-leaning Hispanic civil libertarian I am appalled at the hack journalism of rag trash like TNR. Not even Wilf Blitzer of CNN took the time to discuss the context of the comments with Congressman Paul. I despise racism in all its forms and the stupidity of the white supremacist movement. That’s exactly why I support Ron Paul. I don’t want any clowns of either party passing laws affecting our civil liberties.
Ron Paul is the only peace candidate who will fix our money supply problem, end the discriminatory War on Drugs, end the Patriot Act and bring all of our troops home. Sorry, TNR, you wasted your time.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Paul already named the person who wrote one of the quotes, back in 2001: Barbara Jordan, whom he fired. I would wager the rest are from the same person.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
WTFBBQPWN3D.
I love how that stupid Reason blog talks about and cites, for godsakes, Eric Dondero. Ok, I think that should be complete grounds for nuking from orbit.
Raimondo: 1,000
Other Turkeys: 0
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks for wading though all that waist-high cesspool of sh** to organize the issue and present the truth as it really stands.
I noticed from the time of Paul’s announcement that Cato and Reason did not show support for this historical movement, and I began to question their dedication to the cause of liberty. Just as Reason began to step up to the plate for Ron Paul by featuring him on the cover and defending him against O’Reilly, along comes the big smear campaign and they jump on board as critics and distance themselves yet again from the movement.
Your article put the whole snafu into perspective. I especially enjoyed your breakdown of the supposedly racist quotes within the newsletters in question. I too read the PDFs and had trouble understanding why they were considered racist. Any honest intellectual could easily determine (if they actually read the full text) that while the passages were politically incorrect in our oh-so-moral culture, they were merely discussing intricate nuances pervasive in the racial tensions that exist in our country. The quotes were taken out of context.
Reason and Cato may continue on their well-heeled, faux-Libertarian journey as the pundits and referees of the Revolution, while the rest of us actually fight the real battles for freedom.
Kudos for a very needed examination of this topic.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This is a test as I keep getting the message that I am not authorized to perform some function.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hmm, trying write down the first paragraph of the comment I had written results in the same error, but the previous post did not.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am a paul supporter and have not read the news letters. The fact that reason mag has the monster ghouli anny on the front cover comparing the pig to some kind of barry goldwater completely takes away any kind of legitimacy this paper might of once had.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great Article sir, unlike Kirchick you actually did your homework. 10/10
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m surprised to hear that some of Reason’s subscribers have been complaining about too much support for Ron Paul. I’m a subscriber too and until the issue with his picture on the cover arrived, I was puzzled that his name was scarcely ever mentioned.
(BTW, Mr Welch, if you’re still reading these comments, I want you to know you’ve lost me as a subscriber. When your renewal notice comes in the mail, I’m going to write a check for that amount and send it to lewrockwell.com.)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I find it disappointing that most of this post attacks Kirchik’s hit-piece, which is a far easier target than the Weigel and Sanchez Reason piece linked earlier. The main response to the Reason piece is instead a couple of paragraphs essentially smearing the Reason staff. Hypocrisy.
I, for one, do not vehemently oppose reaching out to middle and working class Americans. I do, however, draw the line at pandering to racists, which is what the newsletters did. Anybody good writer chooses their words very carefully, especially if the piece is going to be published. And the newsletters presumably had editors as well. So say what you want about context (and it’s a good point to make—one has to wonder why the Paul campaign is choosing to reverse its strategy from ‘96), I think the language chosen clearly shows intent to pander to racists.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I sourced the motivation for Kirchick’s smear attmept and outlined some implications of a Paul prediency regarding race here.
http://www.thecitizensperspective.com/content/ron-paul-would-free-most-black-men-lincoln
A little over 20,000 people have read my humble attempt. Kudos Raimondo for your more comprehensive debunking.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
AFAIK, i was the first one who posted a link to Reason Online. I can’t remember whose Blog I posted it on but after I read the Reason piece (and the internal links) I was convinced Dr. Paul a racist.
As I recall, one internal link established Paul had admitted/defended the statements as his own.
In any event, these statements still sound racist to me.
“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
All I know is this Vermont Crank knew zero blacks growing-up but I was well aware of similar ideas - even within my own family.
Back in the day I though such ideas were unjust and racist. Today I think such ideas are unjust and racist.
Dr. Paul sure seemed to have had those ideas back in the day - according to his own testimony in print - and the fact he now claims those were not his views suggests to me that he is embarrassed (good) he held those ideas or (worse) he is trying to weasel-out of the reality those were his views.
In any event, he HAD to know this would come-up (it was an issue previously raised in his Texas race) and he was NOT prepared to deal with it.
That he wasn’t prepared is not a good argument he is qualified to deal with the unexpected the Chief Executive can expect to have to deal with.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin, another great article. I’ve ran into your stuff a few times from different websites, and have been enlightened each time.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Raimondo isolates just four sentences that are genuinely offensive - that is, apart from context. If that is the case, it is believable that nobody involved even remembers which ghostwriter(s) wrote them; the guilty writers themselves may not remember writing anything quite that offensive. This is also makes it more likely that Paul never even read those particular quotes - unless he read every single issue cover-to-cover. I do believe Paul was well aware that his newsletters criticized crime, welfare, federal tyranny, and Israel, and that he contributed some of it himself. I don’t think Paul will apologize for that, nor should he.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It was on Mr. G’s Blog, that IO posted the link - to American Thinker.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/no_enemies_on_the_right_reconsidered/
And here is what Mr. Welch reported
<I>So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken “out of context” and proof of his opponent’s “race-baiting,” Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
TO: I am not Sparticus
Notice that the article you quote states “Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments” but does NOT quote them.
Ron Paul has repeatedly taken ‘moral responsibility’ for not keeping a closer eye on the publication.
While “full ownership” and “moral responsibility” are slightly different in meaning, it is quite conceivable the author of the article you quote meant them synonymously.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks for correcting the record, Justin.
Tom Palmer has been the main anti-Paul
hater over at CATO but that whole crew is
worthless and should be disbanded. That
Reason would ape TNR is disgusting but not
surprising. Dondero is fanatically pro-war
and pro-Bush and is the main source for the
smears. In his Libertarian Republic online
letter, he compares Paul with Taft and the
differences rebound to Paul’s benefit.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Bravo, Justin.
I saw the smears for what they’re worth when I first read them. Kirchik’s dishonesty is despicable to the point he deserves a punch in the nose, or worse.
That Reason would run with that creep’s ball is mind-boggling, and unforgivable.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks for bringing more light to this horrid little episode. Too bad libertarians of every stripe can’t simply put down the feuds old and new and unite for Paul. No matter what happens in the campaign Ron Paul has done more for the freedom movement than any of those beltline organizations including the LP Natcom. Still I sure wish that Lew Rockwell or whoever authored some of the newletter excerpts would stand up and deflect the incoming fire.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As a paleoconservative of both hispanic and black heritage I can say only one thing about Ron Paul’s newsletter: where can I get a subscription.
I’ve already sent a $300 contribution to Ron Paul’s campaign and am spending the little spare time I have phone banking for Ron Paul.
I share Mr Raimondo’s concerns about the campaign’s effectiveness in getting the message out, but plan on doing my part. Telling friends and family to vote for the good doctor.
I had the honor to meet and shake hands with him in Little Havana at Versailles a few weeks back and was shocked to meet something rare among elected politicians: a normal human being.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan - the Republican Party left me a few years ago when it went on a spending and warfare binge that would’ve made LBJ proud. I joined the Constitution Party and never looked back until Dr. Ron Paul.
I fear that we are on the cusp of taking “the last step into a thousand years of darkness” that Ronald Reagan spoke about nearly 44 years ago. I for one will do my duty defending and voting for the one candidate who could bring us back from the brink. At least my conscience will be clear.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you! I finally have the big picture! What an awesome article! I had no idea the libertarians were as vicious as the neocons.
Ron Paul is a true American hero! He is as authentic a patriot as the founding fathers!
There is nothing the establishement can do or say that will keep me from campaigning for Ron Paul and casting my vote for Ron Paul for President; I’ll write it in if I have to.
I will continue to fight for my country until the lovers of liberty win.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
After re-reading this article, I am disturbed that Raimondo is willing to defend statements such as:
“our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin”
and approvingly links to an article that states:
“homosexuality is nothing if not the rejection of traditional sexual behavior.”
I am a libertarian. I agree that libertarian principles prohibit racial set-asides and anti-discrmination policies. I oppose set-asides myself. But I feel the very spirit of statements like these are un-libertarian. It seeks to deny a group their liberty.
Please do not allow your passion for Ron Paul, a passion that I once shared, blind you into embracing racism out of love for Ron Paul.
Unless of course, you were already a racist, in which point I accept and support your right to believe what you want to believe, but understand I must reject that principle and those associated with it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Duckman, read the whole article again. If you did not see how those comments are misconstrued, I doubt your honesty.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Bravo and thank you for your in depth article!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin Raimondo did a fine enough job at smearing Ron Paul in his 1988 Libertarian Presidential race with the Newsletter he produced “Ron Paul and the John Birch Connection.”
Now here he is 20 years later defending the guy. Talk about hypocrisy.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Anyone here attend the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominating Convention in Seattle, WA? Know anyone who had?
If you answered “no” there’s a little factoid that you all might need to be made aware of.
The very writer of the article above - Justin Raimondo - verbally assaulted Ron Paul and his wife Carol, in the the 2nd floor of the Ballroom entrance at the Marriott right before the Nomination speeches. Raimondo walked up to Ron and Carol waving a copy of his Newsletter indicting Paul for being a “crazy, Right-wing lunatic.” He proceeded to scream at them at the top of his lungs for 5 minutes before the gathered Paul supporters managed to drown him out.
There were at least 200 witnesses to the incident.
For the rest of that year Raimondo went on to savage Paul in his writings, and even stalked Paul at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans later that year, repeating his screaming tirades in front of confused Republican delegates at the SuperDome.
And now 20 years later Raimondo is defending Paul?
You all should read some of the stuff he wrote about Paul 20 years ago. Absolutely vicious. I still have a copy of that infamous Newsletter “Ron Paul and the John Birch Connection” in my garage libertarian archives.
But then again, we’re dealing with the same guy who headed up “Gays for Buchanan” in 1992.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
lol is someone posting as dondero, or is he really that out of it?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
That is right, Mr. Rittenburg (hope your wife, by which I mean an inclusive, either your first or second, is feeling better after their various run-ins with violence), Mr. Raimondo fought the good fight for his beliefs in 1988, and now in, 2008.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“You’re nothing but a doomed nation and the true believer Ron Paul, Allah bless his soul, is coming to get your fat lazy asses, wrap your pale skinned women in long sheets to keep them safe from racial tan and send all the blacks to Africa with the last welfare check.”
...
- Now they will blame it on the Iraq/nis and their white supremacists allies, Sir!
- You, dumb motherf#####, told you a thousand times to get off the air before… *click*
***
End of Transmission
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What odd creatures - some of you ‘libertarians’. I swear, having read your race-obsessed comments, it seems that some of you would prefer to receive a vigorous buggery at the hands of a Black thug rather than receive a helping hand from a White working class type while changing your car’s tire for example. Very strange. Nihilistic, even. You’re not cuckolds or sissies too are you?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Let’s have the humility to admit that a) a few obnoxious things were written about gays and blacks; b) whoever else let them get by in the newsletter - and whoever wrote them should apologize and move on; c) 20 years ago the author of this piece was writing long screeds criticizing Paul for just the same things TNR is criticizing them for now. (I’ve still got my copies.)
This phony split with “Beltway libertarians” is not helpful. It’s just the kind of divisions the fascists are encouraging. Carol in dc who doesn’t get any money from any beltway establishment types and still supports paul, lew, justin, et al, just thinks they should undermine these neo-facist critics right and left by admitting their human failings on those rare occasions when they ARE wrong…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To tell you the truth, I don’t think their target is Paul or the campaign; they just want to get Rockwell. I’m reminded of this quote from /The Nation/ last December:
‘One DC-based libertarian--who asked not to be named because he “would like to avoid getting endless 2 am calls from nuts yelling at me for not agreeing with the gold standard"--told me he thinks Rockwell is “one of the most loathsome people ever to set foot on this continent.“‘
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/hayes
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Um, why shouldn’t we ask Ron to give us full disclosure? We know he is lying to us. Do you think we might be trying to help him? How would you guys react if Giuliani was covering up for some people and lying about his business relationship with those unnamed people? Granted the other guys were and are not pandering to get a Congressional Campaign running and are much much worse, but if you are fighting the establishment you have to play by the rules even though they don’t. If you lie they will point it out, if the other candidates lie they won’t. They own the Establishment, you are fighting an away game. That is how it is, you cannot wish it away. Why cannot some of my fellow paleocons, libertarians, or whatever you want to call yourselves see it from the point of view of Idiot America who learns everything from the mainstream pc world. These people are not going to read this twenty page essay. They get everything in five minute interviews and thirty second soundbytes. If Paul deals with it at least they can say for a fact that he did not write them, but we continue to give the MSM wiggle room to insinuate it. Ron has to prove his innocence by showing his partial complicity. It might not be a good looking arrow but its the last one in the quiver.
Now between the Reason folks and the Rockwell folks I would just like to advise you two that you are both the same, hardheaded assholes. You guys are just like married couples that hate each other but their lives would become unmanageable if they ever left each other. And frankly stop reading so much Libertarian shit. That is how you start sounding like a groupthinker. Start reading your enemies and maybe then you all can figure out how to fight them. This kiss Ron’s ass while he sticks his head in the sand strategy blows and so does the rightly call Ron on his lie while trying to push your open borders, “cosmopolitan” agenda.
Now that I think about it, maybe it be better if Cato, Reason, and Rockwell all disappeared and Libertarians would start becoming individuals again instead of these partisan denominations bickering like a bunch of BSing assholes.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
PC, you are absolutely right. Ron Paul has left an opening for attack by the drive by media. The libertarian groupthink is getting embarrassing to read as they go about their witch hunt looking for scapegoats. It is nothing more than one gang trying to control the turf of public opinion. They smelt blood from the newsletters so went after their rivals, thinking they were weakened. Hearsay and insinuation is their methods of attack.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Have read, with fascination and dread, the whole unfolding of this affair from the safety of Australia:-) I only really began reading of Libertarianism some five years ago and that from a leftist perspective. It has taken that long to re-align myself through the Logic of a whole raft of Libertarian writers and bloggers. The now apparent schisms filled me at first with trepidation and despair...but now I think this brouhaha is a good thing. I admire Dr. Paul, Lew, Radley, Rogier, Justin, Reason, Counterpunch, Reason, Alternet, Antiwar.com, et al. To have such a vicious barney actually exhults me! Bring it on!!! In the theatre of the mind let the battle rage and truth will out.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Actually, it IS a “Reason” vs “Lew Rockwell” fight, with Raimondo and Dr Paul on the same side of the fight, whereas they might have once been “enemies”. Politics do indeed make for strange bedfellows. Remember, in 1988, there was no War in Iraq - that war, just like all of them, has changed the political “battlefield” here in the USofA. Just as the Democrat Party will receive and irreversible split due to the Single White Women vs the Negroes battling it out for the nomination, the libertarian/paleo-conservative/Tory/etc. camp is going through an irreversible split due to “Washington insiders” being opposed by “Washington outsiders” (Reason vs. Lew Rockwell). Amazingly enough, the only people that seem to be holding it together are the Republicans. Even Pat Buchanan hasn’t left the GOP (that is, by openly supporting some other candidate), and I doubt he ever will. Every Republican (except for the failing Guiliani) offers at least a modicum of libertarianism and/or “authentic conservatism”, of varying types and degrees, whereas the three Democrat front runners exude every aspect of “liberal authoritarianism”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Regarding AC’s observation on single White women vs. the Negroes; consider this possibility: Black women will soon cast their votes for Republican nominees while Black men and single White females continue in their bestial ménage a trios with the party of Donkeys for the foreseeable future.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have contemplated the voting pattern of the Negress, but I haven’t quite nailed it down...but I see no reason for the vast bulk of them - unmarried with children, needing “public assistance” - voting Republican. They really are in the catbird’s seat, benefiting from either a Negro or Single White Woman victory. That’s not going to happen. Instead, they will “suffer” through more years of being dominated by the White Man”, even Bill Clinton, our “First Black President”, who loved to get the votes of the Negress, then screwed and abused her ("Welfare Reform"), and then through her away like trash, and who very well may also have been our “Last Democrat President”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A good tactical defense of Paul, particularly putting some of the quotes in context, but these sorts of attack will go because no one deals with the real issue at the heart of them: the genocidal white-hating racism that is the central tenet of the liberal establishment. The actual moral and effective response to TNR’s attack is this: Whites are now and have been for at least 50 years the overwhelming majority of victims of racist violence in America. During that period tens of thousands have been murdered, hundreds of thousands, if not a million, have been raped, and tens of millions assaulted - what has The New Republic ever said or done about it? Why tolerate lectures on racism from an organ of racist mass-murder like The New Republic? This whole debate on the Paul newsletters takes place in an atmosphere of institutionalized white-hating racism that ignores the real context of these words - the ritual black race riots, complete with unprovoked racist assaults on whites, which broke out like clockwork during this period (not to mention the day to day black on white criminal assault epidemic), and the racist support for this mass violence in the media. Here - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/11/cincinnati.riots/index.html - is CNN’s coverage of one such riot, the Cincinnati riot of 2001. The only reference in this report to the vicious racial assaults that took place are three carefully cleansed words: “and attacked motorists.” As long as you play this game with these people, as long as you treat them as morally legitimate, as long as you treat the “anti-racism” campaign as honest and moral instead of the aimed-at-whites-only fraud that it is, you are bound to lose.
As for the indignation expressed by white “conservatives” and libertarians over these very mild remarks, it is totally fake. These are people who won’t walk through a black neighborhood, who move out when blacks move in, preferably to a gated community (the very existence of which is primarily to keep LeRoy and Jose from walking or driving through, though the inhabitants would never admit that). They believe everything in these quotes and worse, and those beliefs are at least partially justified. Besides being a sickening display of public PC hypocrisy and subservience, their feigned outrage is a good example of how politics are ratcheted to the next level of leftism by so-called conservatives. They legitimize political correctness by using it for some trivial momentary gain, but are too stupid to see the connection between that legitimization and similar attacks against them, such as the attacks against Bush during the Katrina fiasco, or the effectiveness of labeling them racists when they oppose open borders.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Duckman,
You wrote:
>But I feel the very spirit of statements like these are un-libertarian. It seeks to deny a group their liberty.
One of the statements that you explicitly referred to was:
“homosexuality is nothing if not the rejection of traditional sexual behavior.”
Um… what am I missing here? How does that statement deprive “a group” of “their liberty”?
In fact, is there anyone in the country who actually disagrees with that statement?
Where did you grow up that you think homosexuality is not “rejection of traditional sexual behavior”?
I’m not making rhetorical points here: I have a couple members of my extended family who are gays, and I’ve nothing against gays. I’m just honestly confused as to what bothers you about that quote.
Dave M. in Sacramento
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As for the indignation expressed by white “conservatives” and libertarians over these very mild remarks, it is totally fake. These are people who won’t walk through a black neighborhood, who move out when blacks move in, preferably to a gated community (the very existence of which is primarily to keep LeRoy and Jose from walking or driving through, though the inhabitants would never admit that).
Because I had to work so hard Friday I slept in today (Saturday) and so I missed participating in a volunteer program I am a member of - SHARE
http://www.sharedc.org/about.htm
Our center, established by The Bride, serves the poor and needy via local Churches, the vast majority of which are Protestant Churches whose members are predominantly black.
We prolly have 40 Churches participating, one of which is Catholic, and we seem to be able to make it through the day without stabbing or assaulting each other.
As for the indignation expressed by white “conservatives” and libertarians over these very mild remarks, it is totally fake.
That is a load of BS. The blacks in these Protestant Churches I have become friends with have been a blessing to me and to read them described as Paul described them is totally repulsive, sickening, and execrable. Paul’s ideas about blacks are impossible to justify and so out of touch with reality that it is embarrassing - which is why I think he is trying to slither away from the facts. He IS embarrassed.
And to read the attempts to justify those statements or to explain them away is, to me, sad evidence the libertarians are no different than any other political movement which views the world in a binary way and cleaves the political world into “our” guys and “their” guys and any attempt to correct or address the failings of one on “our “side is met with a bunch of rhetoric which, to me, appears to be an attempt to befog the issue.
Look, what Paul said was clearly racist. I do not know if he is a racist but what he said was racist.
If one can not begin by acknowledging that reality, one is lost.
BTW,I was a Ron Paul supporter before I even became aware of him because I have ALWAYS loved The Constitution, Rule of Law, Peace and Liberty, Sound Money, Secure Borders, Peaceful Foreign Policy etc etc. etc etc.
And my ideas will remain long after Paul has stopped getting less than 10% of the vote in every single Primary.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Reading Mr. Raimondo’s piece, I think we can all agree on the following facts:
1. Four statements are racist, even when taken fully in context.
2. Those statements were published in a newsletter under Dr. Paul’s name, and from which he financially benefited.
3. Those statements do not sound like Dr. Paul’s writing.
Here’s my problem. If we accept that Dr. Paul didn’t write them, the obvious questions are (a) who did, and (b) why did Ron Paul allow these writings to go out?
Let’s accept for a moment the explanation from the campaign that the answer to (b) is that there was a lapse in judgment and Dr. Paul takes moral responsibility. That still leaves (a), who wrote them?
Lew Rockwell was involved in the publication of the newsletter at that time, as he was getting paid by the company set up to publish it. Lew Rockwell denied writing the statements to Jamie Kirchick, referring instead to multiple unnamed ghost writers. Since then, he has refused to comment or clarify.
I don’t have a dog in whatever alleged feud there is between libertarian factions, but Lew Rockwell, both in his statements and his blog postings has done everything except an on-the-record denial of the accusation that he’s responsible.
Frankly, the silence is deafening.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Ron Paul, my most recent political baby, has run oft and left me at the electoral altar.
What can be done? Time to break out a few good bottles of cabernet and toast his demise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vb2F1mQZ58
Click to flag this comment as abusive
if you aren’t gonna support him fine. scram. who needs you. yeah he’s a big racist. the mises institute, which probably taught you everything you know about liberty, is racist.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Can somebody explain how noticing or mentioning the reality of aggregated ethnic behavioral attributes makes one racist? I swear, given the tone of some purist commenters here, the next thing we do is quell professional comedians and their vast audiences!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
An excellent piece.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Solman Burke, I watched that YouTube.com video link you posted. Hilarious. And quite appropriate.
But if you think you’re crying now, wait a week or two. We’re just at the very beginning stages of this scandal. I can tell you that my sources are indicating there’s much, much more to come. Stay tuned for some news on Ron Paul’s books from the 1970s and ‘80s. Just as controversial, with just as many questionable quotes.
Also, stay tuned for more investigative revelations on the financial front. Seems Paul has had some shady fundraisers working for him in the past with some ties to some really out there groups. And there’s been an awfully lot of meddling of some of the entperprises. No doubt an accountant’s nightmare.
And, I have a feeling some stuff will come out about some “questionable” events Paul has attended.
What you’ve seen from the New Republic, CNN, Economist, Reason and other media so far is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s going to be an interesting ride for sure in the coming weeks.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks Justin.
This is the same old thing I’ve seen so many times. It’s like NRA in the gun rights movement, or HSLDA in the homeschooling movement. Their number one thing is to be movers and shakers in the halls of power, and if anything gets in the way of that, including their supposed mission, it will be shunted aside.
Likewise with the LP. They are happy with 1% of the vote in elections, just so long as they are understood to be the voice of libertarianism. The one true faith. Heaven forbid that someone who is outside the party, no matter how libertarian, be elected president.
They had their day. And to be honest, they did a lot of good back then. But now is the time for them to get out of the way or get run over.
Funny, we roll our eyes that Democrats and Republican fear freedom, but it is all the worse that these libertarian insiders fear it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Well done, Mr. Raimondo.
No one ever bothers to explain why it’s wrong for Paul to be a “racist”, if that’s what he is. “Racism” (if it’s defined to include the making of the remarks made in the newsletter) doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle, so there’s nothing wrong with it from the standpoint of libertarian morality—or of any other principled moral system.
Such “racism” can be wrong only from the standpoint of a particularistic morality that makes moral judgments according to what’s good or bad for the particular person or group.
The comments at issue relate to persons and groups that have used (or have attempted to use) the State to commit aggression against the author of the newsletter. Expressions of resentment and hostility regarding those who victimize you are hardly objectionable.
It’s not very difficult to figure out that those who object to self-defense tend to be the same people who benefit from aggression.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A worthy defense of the articles, whoever wrote them. Which i