LIES AND DECEIT USED TO SMEAR RON PAUL

by Alan Stang
January 16, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Ron Paul a hater, a racist, a conspiracy kook, etc.? What? A few times, during the past few months, I have warned that were Dr. No to show signs of shattering orchestrated media containment, were he to become a real threat to the conspiracy for world government�s triumph � now so close � they would concoct some accusation in an attempt to discredit him.

I use the word �concoct� rather than �expose� because there is nothing to expose. Dr. No is defiantly humdrum. There are no women. There are no men�s room incidents. He is the only known Member of Congress who refuses to take the lucrative pension. Recently, as usual, he returned to the federal treasury his unspent office expenses for last year, in this case $75,000. He has been married to the same lady for fifty some years. Paradoxically, what makes him exciting are his electrifying ideas, beside which every other candidate looks stale.

Proof that Dr. No has broken through is not just the fact that he has whipped �front runner� Rudy the Ghoul and gelding conservative Fred Thompson, but also the news that someone is now selling an Awards card including a picture of the debonair Dr. No, which you can use to get grocery coupons. So, if the idea succeeds, millions of Moms will be feasting on the avuncular gynecologist�s kindly features daily.

When Dr. No flies back to Texas, Paul spies find out where he will land. A spontaneous motorcade forms to escort him home. Recently, a lady told me that, on one of those trips home, Dr. No stopped the motorcade at a grocery store because wife Carol had asked him to buy some things. His favorite meal is a �Sloppy Joe,� which I didn�t know myself, but that night he was having spaghetti. The lady who told me all this marveled. �He�s just like us!� That�s right, he is. By the way, Carol is an archetypical grandma. The normal man, standing beside her, feels an irresistible compulsion to hug. Try it! It�s fun!

So, now, here comes the attack. It comes � �coincidentally� on the day of the New Hampshire primary � in the New Republic. First, let�s look at the source. The New Republic has printed so many lies so long that Hollyweird has made a movie about it. No other magazine enjoys such a distinction. The movie is �Shattered Glass,� about New Republic editor Stephen Glass, who wrote story after story for the magazine in which he simply concocted the �facts.� In view of the present attack on Dr. Paul, you really should see it.

Indeed, after the horrible notoriety engendered by the exposure of Glass, and then by the movie about him, would you believe that another scandal like it, but even bigger, erupted at the New Republic? A �Baghdad Diarist� who was a U.S. soldier in that city wrote for instance that his fellow soldiers ridiculed a disfigured woman, ran over dogs for fun and played with the skulls of Iraqi children, among other nasty American acts. None of this happened of course, and the scandal was compounded by the fact that the wife of the fabulist was � mirabile dictu � a �fact-checker� at New Republic, where the fabulist used an alias in his perpetrations. Again the magazine had to disavow what it had printed.

Would you believe furthermore that these are not the only such discrepancies in the august pages of the New Republic? So the biggest surprises in all of this are that the magazine could still be published and that anyone with an operating brain could take it seriously. The New Republic is a compulsive serial prevaricator. I wouldn�t believe the page numbers in it unless I counted them myself.

Now let�s look briefly at the author of the latest New Republic sliming. A few weeks back, I received an email from someone named �Jamie� Kirchick, who identified himself as a writer at the New Republic. Kirchick said he was doing a piece on Dr. Paul and wanted to interview me about him. Needless to say, I responded at once, but never heard from him again. Maybe, in the interim, he found out who I am.

So who is James Kirchick? If you google him, you will find one reference to him as a �dishonest sack of s--t.� Since this is a high-class site and many of my readers are exquisitely genteel Christian ladies, we of course shun such terminology. Suffice it to say therefore that Kirchick is a supporter of Rudy the Ghoul�s.

We do not have the space here, and it would be unnecessary, to spell out yet again the miles of baggage in Rudy�s long train. You already know it. By the way, one thing we don�t know � probably because my fellow members of the press don�t want to know it � is cross-dressing Rudy�s bra and cup size. Despite many approaches, the Ghouliani campaign isn�t talking.

�Jamie� Kirchick is also a militant faggot and therefore deranged. No doubt this helps explain why his tone is so nasty. Deranged people resent a paragon of wholesome normalcy like Dr. No. And in case you are wondering, it is perfectly okay to reveal that Kirchick is a militant faggot because the man at the New Republic who exposed the �Baghdad Diarist� is a faggot and angry liberaloids in the media used that to discredit him when he spilled the frijoles.

What did Kirchick actually say? He begins by talking about right-wing newsletters. �. . . These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government . . . .� And Ron Paul�s name was on a few of those newsletters.

Fear of something dangerous that isn�t there is paranoia. No fear of something dangerous that is there is willful stupidity and maybe even catatonia. The word �rambling� is meant to convey that these newsletters were incoherent. The flaw in the bugger�s argument is that today what those newsletters were talking about some twenty years ago is as obvious as a fish in the face.

You can easily establish that the Trilateral Commission is working for world government by reading its own publications. Indeed, the North American Union is now obviously trying to abolish the United States. That is why Washington does not enforce our borders. So there is certainly nothing for Dr. No to apologize for here.

Next, Jamie goes to 1996, �when Charles �Lefty� Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that �opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,� that �if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,� and that black representative Barbara Jordan is �the archetypical half-educated victimologist� whose �race and sex protect her from criticism.��

Notice that the New Republic sodomite does not say he read all this himself. He read it in a political release from a Democrat opponent Dr. Paul defeated. I would not have been satisfied with that � Kirchick was � but remember that the New Republic doesn�t come anywhere close to my journalistic standards. Because he said it, however, it becomes �true,� and he now can employ it as a �source.� It�s a technique almost as good as quoting yourself.

Consider also that these newsletters were in effect little magazines � not like the New Republic, thank God � that published other writers. Kirchick doesn�t cite, can�t cite, anything he calls objectionable that appeared under Dr. Paul�s byline. So, the worst he can do is accuse him of publishing something allegedly objectionable written by someone else, �Whoever actually wrote them,� says Kirchick. This would make Margaret Sanger a Nazi for publishing Hitler �racial scientist� Ernst Rudin, and Random House a rapist for publishing the memoirs of rapist Bill Clinton.

Indeed, notice that Dr. Paul�s only connection to the publisher of some of the newsletters was a �minority stake.� Are the liberaloids sure they want to play with this tenuous principle? If they do, we could probably haul out enough �minority stakes� among them to fill their knickers more than once. The principle could put any celebrity who does endorsements at risk.

But now, building on this shaky source, a Democrat opponent Dr. Paul beat, Kirchick is able to say of the newsletters, �. . . What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. . . .�

As for the aforesaid reference to black street crime, whoever wrote it, sometimes I am out on the streets late at night. When I hear footsteps behind me, I turn of course to see who is there. If the man behind me is black I am scared. If he is white I am not. Whoa! Isn�t that a terribly racist remark? How could I say such a thing?

I didn�t say it. I�m simply repeating it. The man who said it was Jesse Jackson, certified liar, adulterer, ersatz preacher and shakedown artist. That�s right; Jesse Jackson said it so it can�t be racist. Ain�t that right, Jesse? Thank God I thought of pointing the true author out before Jamie got on my case. Before we get all over Dr. Paul, let�s nail Jesse for his pathological hatred of Jews and obvious support of the Holocaust. Remember that he called New York �Hymie Town.�

Next, Jamie really gets in over his head, not very difficult to do. He attacks Dr. Paul�s connection to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which headquarters in Auburn, Alabama. You have heard Dr. Paul mention the Austrian School of economics in Republican debates. Most Americans � probably including the intellectually deprived pygmies with him onstage � no doubt wonder what he is talking about.

The Austrian School is the well spring of all modern Free Enterprise thinking. Ludwig von Mises is the greatest economist of the Twentieth Century and the leading exponent of the Austrian School. Kirchick�s objection is that the Institute represents �a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states.� Well, wasn�t it? That hellish war paradoxically destroyed the Union of independent states, replacing it with the all-powerful central government the Founding Fathers feared.

Whether you agree with that assessment or not, wise observers will grant that it is a serious position worth discussion and defense. Kirchick does not. Indeed, he takes issue with Dr. Paul�s belief that the war was not necessary. Dr. Paul asks why we had to fight the most devastating war in our history, with by far the most killed � some 600,000 � allegedly to free the slaves, when every other country on earth, including Russia, freed its slaves peacefully. But Kirchick has no answer.

Kirchick says some of the newsletters attacked Michael �Martin Luther� King as a �world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,� and �a comsymp, if not an actual party member.� Yes, perfectly true and much more like it. For the entire truth about Mike King, see my piece on the subject published during our annual uncelebration of his birthday on January 21.

Remember, Kirchick admits he doesn�t know what he is talking about (�Whoever actually wrote them�). We are discussing a few of the things he says only because he says them. He complains about the newsletters� treatment of homosexuality. Remember that he is a militant faggot himself. He says they called AIDS �a politically protected disease.� Well, isn�t it? Doesn�t AIDS get far more federal money than any other disease? Wasn�t the original name of it GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency)? Didn�t the sodomites force the change?

He says indignantly that one newsletter quoted with approval the slogan advocated by a well-known Libertarian editor: �Sodomy = Death.� Well, doesn�t it? Don�t sodomites die long before normal men? Kirchick complains that Dr. No�s newsletters defend �parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims.� Are those parents wrong to worry? Hasn�t the AIDS establishment screeched for years about how contagious their disease is?

Advertisement

Indeed, says Kirchick, one Paul newsletter has the temerity to say that �gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense.� Isn�t that true as well? In the face of their own pronouncements about contagion, don�t most of these lunatics practice unlimited promiscuity? Some even try to contract AIDS. They are called �bug chasers.� Is that good sense? In one Paul newsletter, Jamie even found the incriminating comment that Donna Shalala is a �short lesbian.� Honestly, I fail to see anything wrong with that. Isn�t she a short lesbian? In the opinion of Tom Thumb she would probably be tall, but she is certainly a dyke. Again, Dr. Paul need not apologize, assuming he wrote this in the first place, which we don�t know.

Kirchick speaks with disdain of Dr. Paul�s �distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills.� But as the dollar slides inexorably down the toilet, the reason for that distrust becomes increasingly obvious. Is that the reason college students across the country leap to their feet with delight when Dr. No talks about abolishing the Fed?

Kirchick bristles because the newsletters �contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. . . .� Why do more and more observers believe that is true? Because it is! And that is becoming more obvious daily.

Establish that for yourself simply by reading what the latter two groups say themselves. You can�t do that for the Bilderbergers, because they are utterly secret. They meet in secret surrounded by machine guns and don�t even have a name. We call them �Bilderbergers� because they held their first meeting in the Hotel de Bilderberg in Holland. But apparently it�s okay with Kirchick that the most powerful men on earth meet in secret and decide what will be done with our lives and property.

Finally, Jamie is shocked � shocked � yes, shocked because in 1978, one of the newsletters �blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and �fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests� for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called �one of the saddest events in the history of the United States.�� All true. In fact, did not David Rockefeller in his own autobiography admit � even boast � that he does belong to a conspiracy working against the United States? Yes, he did. David is quite full of himself these days. See my piece on the subject.

So, as you have seen, the Kirchick story is in fact a dishonest sack of bleep, typical New Republic �journalism.� It is as far from the truth as it is possible to get. I can testify from some thirty years of personal experience that you will never meet a man more genuinely humane than Dr. Paul.

But, as I write, KTRH, a 50,000 watt blockbuster in Houston, is �covering the story.� They are running a poll, asking listeners whether they think Dr. Paul did know about the �racism,� etc. in his newsletters and 64% of the listeners think he did. Of course, by this means, the conspiracy for world government is trying to neutralize the fact that Dr. No has by far more support among blacks than any other Republican candidate.

So where does this leave us? Of course as soon as the New Republic upchuck hit the streets, the weak sisters bailed. Goodbye. We don�t want anyone like that on board. You can�t trust them. The assault is separating the women from the girls. Remember, I warned you this was coming; I just didn�t know what it would be. Consider that this pathetic search for nits was apparently the best they could do. They strained and strained and brought forth a pea.

What does it prove? The conspiracy is not attacking Dr. No to keep in practice. They now know he is a threat. The New Republic upchuck should invigorate us. It does me. It proves that Dr. No has broken through. When I say he has broken through, I mean that for the first time in my decades long patriot memory the freedom message has erupted in the general population, not just in one group.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

This is not just another political campaign. It is a movement. In the unlikely event that Dr. No loses, what did you think would happen to all the people whose apathy he cured, some of whom are getting a whiff for the first time of what freedom would be like? What would happen to all that money? Dr. No did not choose to run. The movement chose him. Later, it will choose someone else, someone with better jokes. Get inspired. Stand fast. Our time has come.

� 2008 - Alan Stang - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale