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:
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.