James Kirchick writes the following about Ron Paul, the liberatarian-capitalist, Republican U.S. presidential candidate from Texas:
If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation praised "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped."
Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. ... What they [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing—but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics. ...
"," by James Kirchick. "The bigoted past of Ron Paul." The New Republic. January 08, 2008.
We can't really agree with all the points of this article. We can't get behind all the characterizations. "Paranoid and rambling—dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon" for instance, is way too dismissive. There is a banking conspiracy if "conspiracy" is defined properly rather than in such a way as to automatically label anyone using the term in a serious manner as a nut. Criminal prosecutors regularly charge people with criminal conspiracy for instance; yet, very few people label them as paranoid nut cases. The elite banker David Rockefeller really did start the Trilateral Commission and is a member of the Bilderberg Group. He really has often met in secret with the most powerful people in the world to lay out plans for rule by the bankers and the intellectuals they have on their payrolls, directly and indirectly, under the "new world order," about which George H.W. Bush spoke. They are against national sovereignty and do seek a one-world government headed by the ultra-rich (a global plutocracy). Understand that the ultra-rich do not acquire their positions by being Christlike but rather quite the opposite.
Also, the observations concerning the Civil War are written from the perspective of someone who actually believes that Lincoln took the Union-side to war for the sake of the slaves rather than for the sake of coercive unity (Empire). Such coercive force is likewise antichrist. This is no endorsement of the slavery of the Confederate States. Such slavery is reprehensible.
The language against the Blacks in Ron Paul's newsletters is disgusting. It is definitely racist. It lumps all Blacks together and casts them in a terrible light.
As for the comments about homosexuals, we state that homosexuality is a harmful behavior. However, we don't subscribe to coercion against homosexuals or anyone else.
Also, about the statement about Jews in various countries willing to act as extensions of the Mossad (Israeli secret service; Israel's version of the CIA), plenty of Jews have admitted to that activity. It isn't anti-Semitic, per se, to point it out. It's just ignorance or concealment on the part of those who claim it is.
The article isn't clear which side Ron Paul was on concerning the Panama Canal. The Canal was built under gross militant imperialism forwarded by U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt.
Now, there is no doubt that Alex Jones can be over-the-top. He jumps to conclusions to sensationalize quite often; however, that doesn't mean that everything he says is without merit. The same may properly be said of people coming from the opposite perspective, such as James Kirchick, who has some valid points here about the Ron Paul newsletters.
On Christian Reconstructionism and bringing back the Old Testament law of stoning, there isn't anything Christian about it. It's a purely evil idea. Jesus was against stoning or any punishment meted out by sinners against sinners. He was for mercy and repentance.
So, Ron Paul has been exposed here for his racist tendencies or at the very least, carelessness about what went out under his name. Racism is a sad legacy of much of the Old South, more so than the North, in the United States. It is changing, albeit much too slowly to suit God.
To be fair, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters
Tue Jan 8, 2008 4:26pm EST
ARLINGTON, Va.—(Business Wire)—In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do
not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that
we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and
high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name."
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
You will note that the statement does not address each aspect of the article by James Kirchick. Perhaps it was hastily released since it was primary day.
We recommend you read the rest of our series, "Libertarian Capitalism: False Shepherds." Links are at the top of this post.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)