Low blows against Ron Paul

Make no mistake on this blog the writer is supporting Ron Paul to win the GOP nomination and to perhaps clean Soetoro/Obama’s clock in debates.  But as always the forces of evil, in the guises of media (no surprise) and war monger neocons with ties to the Military Industrial Complex and of course the uneducated American public, who care more about Hollywood Illuminati than the bankster frauds who have been pitting American against American, are on the move.  But now comes the lowest of the low in attacking the only Presidential Candidate who has the Constitution committed.  Apparently 20 years ago, Ron Paul SUPPOSEDLY (note the emphasis), wrote what could be construed as racist remarks in a newsletter.

It seemingly started for your not-so-humble correspondent with a diatribe written by Irving Kristol college graduate Rich Lowry of National Review.  In said scribe, Lowry whined and opined…

He tends to bring any conversation back to the malignancy of U.S. foreign policy. In the final debate in Iowa, he rambled on about how worries about the Iranian nuclear program are “war propaganda,” but if the Iranians get the bomb that they’re not developing, that’s entirely understandable, since we’re “promoting their desire to have it.” Jeane Kirkpatrick famously condemned the “Blame America First” Democrats; would that she had lived long enough to condemn the “Blame America First” libertarians.

In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo), and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims. This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.

Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.” On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).

Paul’s promiscuousness with his ideological bedfellows — he hails members of the John Birch Society for their fine educations and respect for the Constitution — accounts for the disgrace he brought on himself with his newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s. As journalist James Kirchick exposed, they were full of race-baiting and rancid Israel-bashing. Paul maintains he didn’t know what was being written in the first person under his name. To this day, he says he doesn’t know who wrote the copy. Has he asked? During some dozen Republican debates, not one journalist thought to query Paul about the newsletters that would be disqualifying for anyone else.

If that’s not being jingoistic I don’t know what is.  This caused Justin Raimondo, writing at Antiwar.com to respond to the Faux News Contributor and contributor to neocon wars and the fake left-right paradigm…

While a few sectarian leftists go after Paul for his domestic views – and the newsletter non-“scandal” is designed to keep them from crossing over and voting for Paul in the open primaries – the really venomous hatred for the good Doctor is coming from the neoconservative right. Lowry starts off his piece with the vitriol in high gear:

“Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is in a bid to make history in Iowa. Can he become the first marginal, conspiracy-minded congressman with an embarrassing catalog of racist material published under his name to win the caucuses?”

This from the editor of a magazine whose founder, William F. Buckley, Jr., wrote an editorial attacking the 1964 Civil Rights bill – not because, like Paul, he thought it would involve a massive violation of property rights, but because he believed blacks were “unready” for the franchise and wouldn’t use it with sufficient wisdom – a trait one assumes he attributed to the high-melanin content of their skin. “The central question that emerges,” averred Buckley, “is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

Although National Review has never repudiated that official editorial position, presumably Senor Lowry has ascertained that black voters are now sufficiently “advanced” to cast their ballots – although we haven’t heard anything from National Review about the coordinated and systematic attempts by Republicans to drive down black voter turnout by passing laws requiring forms of identification at the polls many black voters don’t have [.pdf].

As for Paul’s alleged “conspiracy-mindedness,” Lowry doesn’t go into specifics, but does he bother reading his own magazine, where the “climate conspiracy” is taken to task for hiding the “truth” about global warming?

What really gets Lowry’s goat, however, is what I find so charming about the man:

“He tends to bring any conversation back to the malignancy of U.S. foreign policy. In the final debate in Iowa, he rambled on about how worries about the Iranian nuclear program are ‘war propaganda,’ but if the Iranians get the bomb that they’re not developing, that’s entirely understandable, since we’re “promoting their desire to have it.”

Aside from the juvenile name-calling, Lowry’s attack on Paul is nearly content-free. He writes:

“In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push ‘to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,’ as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo), and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims. This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.”

So, Mr. Lowry, where is your proof?!

As for Paul’s allegedly “poisonous view of America itself” – this is a clumsy lie. Clumsy because the very essence of Paul’s philosophy is the distinction between a nation and its government – with the latter invariably opposing and destroying the real interests and values of the former.

That Lowry neither knows nor cares about the real libertarian position on anything is readily apparent, and he continues blithely on his way:

“Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: ‘There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.’”

There are, of course, no internet links in Lowry’s piece – which ought to raise suspicions in any reader, nowadays, who expects to be able to examine the vital context of citations. A suspicion rises to the level of a certainty when we go out and Google Paul’s remarks for ourselves and find out he was talking about the increasing integration of the CIA and the Pentagon, prefiguring the upcoming appointment of David Petraeus as CIA chief – a move widely heralded as the merger of the CIA’s intelligence-gathering function with the Pentagon’s purely military mission. Why shouldn’t he comment on what is an important shift in our strategic military doctrine? The problem with Lowry’s critique is that he never knows when to stop, imputing a sinister motive to what is simply commentary on the course of American foreign policy.

Bold–I THOUGHT SO!  As for the alleged newsletters, the great mind of Tom Woods chimes in…

I don’t have any particular insight into the newsletter issue, having been in high school and college at the time, but I’ll share a few thoughts in light of all the requests I’ve been getting.

Jamie Kirchick wonders why libertarians “don’t care” about the newsletters. I don’t think it’s right to say they don’t care. Their view is that the offending sentences, of which there are far fewer than critics are intimating, sound absolutely nothing like Ron Paul (can anyone seriously dispute that?), and they are convinced, with good reason, that the kindly man they see in the debates, in interviews and in person is who he really is.

They also believe that our political class is full of people — we may justly call them sociopaths — whose words may always be exquisitely correct, never once straying from proper p.c. decorum, but who think absolutely nothing of (say) bombing foreign populations on the most ludicrous and transparent grounds. Our society banishes those who make insensitive remarks, but considers our knee-jerk bombardiers to be people with a legitimate point of view, and certainly as having done nothing that might end a person’s career.

To call this a skewed moral calculus is about the least one might say about it.

Lots of pretty blunt things were said in the wake of the L.A. riots, an event most of Ron Paul’s young supporters won’t even remember. Plenty of conservatives said the riots had their origins in the welfare-state mentality, and a Ron Paul newsletter was scarcely the only outlet not saying super-delicate p.c. things about marauders who pulled people out of their cars and killed them.

Certainly this exchange in the newsletters was outside the normal bounds of polite discourse:

Robin: I was going to bring you a VCR, but the stores had none.

Johnny: A little low, are they?

Robin: Somebody, I guess, had done a little “political shopping.” [Suddenly imitating an angry black man] “Yo, man, this [giving the clenched-fist Black Power salute] is for Rodney King … and the five TVs are for me.”

Wait a second, that’s not from the newsletters at all — that’s from Robin Williams’ appearance on Johnny Carson’s final episode of the Tonight Show.

It is to laugh.  But it looks like also fake Libertarians are trying to do in the good Doctor.  Mind you this is from 2008.

Writing in the online edition of Reasonmagazine, 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.

Apparently there is a reason for this writer to reject Reason and fake Libertarians.  Then again it is now being run by the neocon Koch Brothers.  And speaking of neocons, the belligerent one Newt “I love Teddy Roosevelt” Gingrich is whining Ron Paul supporters want to legalize drugs…uh…ever hear of prohibition, Newton and what happens when gubmint tells you what you can do with your body..or is something like freedom a bit too radical for fake conservatives like you Mr. Gingrich?

Aside from this very weak and sign of desperation shown newsletter flak, shown in a can’t say I blame him moment when Ron Paul was given what has turned out to be a gotcha question from a CNN/Mockingbird operative.

And at Daily Paul they respond in kind with dirt on the Mockingbird Agent.  TALK ABOUT GOTCHA!

The Plot Behind This Seemingly Typical Interview

Gloria Borger is married to Lance Morgan. Morgan is according to the web site of his employer, Powell Tate,“chief communications strategist at Powell Tate in Washington, D.C. He specializes in developing and executing communications strategies for public policy debates, crisis communications and media training.”

So who might be the clients of Powell Tate, where Borger’s husband is “chief communications strategist and crisis communications” adviser for?

Just about every part of the military industrial-complex that Ron Paul wants to shrink or shutdown. According to the Powell Tate web site, they are strategic communications for among others:

The U.S. Army

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

The U.S Agency for International Development

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

and, I’m not joking, The National Pork Board.

Bottom line Gloria Borger’s husband is as inside Washington DC as you can get.
http://www.gspm.org/caplancemorgan

Now Borger, what say thee about that?

These low blows are sadly part of the vetting process Republicans have been used to for too long in the fake left-right paradigm.  Now not to sound birther or anything but, what about the vetting of Barack Hussein Obama alias Barry Soetoro alias Harrison J Bounel, alias Bari M Shabazz?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: