Rather than address the merits of what Ron Paul has to say, the New Republic has chosen to act like hysterical liberals. Shame on Pajamas Media–and their GOP jock washers in tow–for catering to this.
Sure, in 1990 Ron Paul had some positive words to say with respect to David Duke’s campaign for Senate. None of those positive words had anything to do with race but rather with tax cuts, opposition to reverse racism (affirmative action), welfare, and forced busing, each of which pertained to Paul’s overall Constitutionalist position. He also pointed out that Duke received 9% of the black vote in the primary. I guess those blacks were racists, too. Did the New Republic bother to point that out?
I will not take away some of Martin Luther King’s accomplishments, in particular opposing some very hideous discrimination practices including Jim Crow laws, he was hardly sterling in terms of marital fidelity. While I’ll give Martin Luther King the benefit of a doubt on the “underage girls and boys” charge leveled by the Paul camp, his philandering is certainly undeniable, as even his closest associates concede on that one. Even the FBI won’t deny that. I also know some folks–firsthand–who witnessed his involvement in prostitution.
We all want our heroes to be sterling, but–let’s be honest–the truth is often at variance with the images we project of them. Paul was inflammatory, but nothing he said about King was racist.
Had Paul merely called King a communist, he would have been correct.
The other part of Paul’s statement, that King “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration” is more in line with the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Metro Louisville’s forced integration plan. I guess that means the New Republic considers our Supreme Court racist.
In another gem from NR:
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” would be better alternatives–and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”
Maybe NR should get their facts straight. In fact, Sharpton not only demonstrated at the Statue of Liberty but also closed it down and demanded to rename New York City Martin Luther King City “to reclaim it for our people”. That was the silliness to which Paul was responding.
The “limp wrist” comment was an response on a gay reporter’s stupid assault on Andy Rooney over his own gay comments. Again, responding to silliness with silliness.
The “Bring Back the Closet” blurb addressed a former Bush insider who–after coming out of the closet–revealed his preference for “the young”. What is worse, a “bring back the closet” jab or the individual, at whom the comment was directed, who preys on “the young”?
Glad to know that NR supports pedophilia.
The “survival report” comments on gays in San Francisco was true; even gay journalist Randy Shilts, author of And the Band Played On, agreed. Fact is, the gay community is very much at fault for their reluctance to close down their bathhouses. This contributed greatly to the early spread of AIDS in the United States.
His militia comments in the 1994 Survival Report were right on the money, and perfectly consistent with his Constitutionalist position on the matter. Maybe his detractors would do well to read the entirety of his comments.
After reading his comments in entirety, the only ones with which I take exception are his suggestion that MLK was a pederast. While that was a low blow, it was far from racist. Had he stopped with adulterer, philanderer, and communist, he would have been inflammatory but correct.