Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Old Angry White Man Discovers James Kirchick, Anti-Paul Crusader, Writing With Merit and a Rigorous Frankenstein Government Defense

For a couple of years, I have been listening to slanderous claims of racial bigotry and other various  accusations lodged against Ron Paul. I never could source them and I could not research or evaluate the claims. I even read some Jewish blogger's hate filled rant about how Ron Paul hates Jews because he wants the Israelis to start paying their own costs of war without American aid- thus by connotation and assumption- the conclusion is in. Paul is an anti Semite.

Surely there is no other explanation, no plausible deny-ability. In the new America, we condemn and judge without due process. You do know that FEMA is building camps, don't you?

So what I am about to say- most of you know. I am a Ron Paul supporter. What I am not, is some media lap dog who in my fervent desire to get a black man elected President- covers up all that is potentially bad about the man. I do not practice contempt prior to investigation. Hell, I even read the Huffington Post for intelligence gathering purposes. I am a retired investigator. I was paid to listen to both sides. The costs of hastily drawn conclusions meant lawsuits and career jeopardy. So you didn't make those mistakes. In some cases, the work actually cleared the accused. And yes, human beings make mistakes. I am a member of that group. I didn't always get it right but I didn't quit until I was satisfied and exhausted- confident that I had given the matter I was investigating- my very best.

So last night, I was reading a Doug Ross anti-Ron Paul piece here:  I like Doug Ross. The rant did not cite sources- however the comment section did. I left my usual request for sources and just as I was leaving the comment section I noticed a link that an anti-Ron commenter had left. I cut and pasted it. That link led me to a young writer named James Kirchick. Kirchick is a writer, reporter, correspondent. There is a plethora of information available on him. I have read a lot about Kirchick and his work tonight. He is a pretty good writer and unlike the media who failed to expose President Obama's secret past- Kirchick actually did some work and investigative reporting. So did I. Four or five hours worth. Not exhaustive- but not bad. Enough that I got Kirchick's message. Here was my first evidence of Ron Paul's bigoted past. Finally a source. Here is the piece that launched Mr. Kirchick into prominence. It is titled, "Angry White Man, The Bigoted Past of Ron Paul." There is a picture of Paul wearing a Confederate Calvary hat complete with a sinister smile on the cover of this piece.

I should tell you that I found the title which alleges bigotry, bigoted. Had it simply said, "Angry Man, The Bigoted Past of Ron Paul." I would have given the article more credibility. And ditto, sans the Confederate hat smear. That was un-necessary. But I suppose young writers on a mission to make themselves prominent are entitled to a mistake or two. Even if they are a little bigoted toward angry white men. I am an angry white man. I will tell you this. I am getting sick and tired of being blamed for every societal ill. Emasculated by society and women. I have had enough bigotry directed at me. In fact, I may even become a very pissed off and gelded, white man.

Here is a very recent piece by James Kirchick. James does not appear to like Ron Paul which I began to understand because I am a quick study.

Google Kirchick and Paul and you will find gobs of stuff. Fights on panels, wiki, I've read a lot tonight. I am a due diligence sort of fella.

Evaluation and Summary

James Kirchick is young and possibly gay. These things do not matter. Attacking people personally is chicken shit and bigoted. There is a very important distinction I would like to make here. This is absolutely lost on my liberal friends. It is ok to attack the opinions or shaky facts of any data set or allegation. We can do that in a civilized way without attacking the person who holds those beliefs. Just because I disagree with the way Kirchick gathers and presents information does not mean I dislike Kirchick. This is a function of maturity. Kirchick is a good writer. He is not required to like Paul. And unlike most anonymous media drones- he appears to have actually gotten the best evidence. Newsletters dug out of two places. Would I have liked to see them? Of course. But I am going to have to take Kirchick's word for it- that the newsletters do exist. But be very careful drawing conclusions when in fact you have not read the newsletters in question nor has Paul ever claimed that he wrote them. This does not relieve Paul of responsibility. Could somebody else have written nasty racial and bigoted things back when society was much more accepting of racially bigoted things? Of course. In fact, I have even seen shows and read published and syndicated writing wherein the term "nigger" was used. What our society tolerates is ever evolving. What was accepted practice and tolerated when I was a young man certainly pre dates the arrival of Mr. Kirchick on this rock. Do I think Kirchick may have "cherry picked" the most atrocious things in his zeal to smear an angry white man? Of course. Does he make any attempt to be fair to Ron Paul? Good question...the answer is...

Not really or at the very least- I don't think unbiased reporting was or is the goal of James Kirchick when writing about Ron Paul. That is my opinion gleaned from four hours worth of reading. Does it matter to me what Kirchick's motive is? Not really. I am simply trying to verify if his writing is accurate. Could Ron Paul be given the benefit of the doubt? Sure. Could Paul even have said racially bigoted things? Of course. Those things were acceptable in places and tolerated to some degree in the 70's, 80's, or 90's. James Kirchick was born in 1983. I was 23 in 1983. Ron Paul was nearly 50. The term "nigger" was on it's way out. Kirchick was born at a time when our country was evolving out of "All in the Family" and  our favorite bigot, Archie Bunker. That was syndicated television. Listen to a view episodes of that... Mr. Kirchick. That was the flavor of our culture prior to your birth.

Is Ron Paul an anti-Semite? No I don't see any definitive proof of that. Ron Paul is simply tired of wasting billions we don't have fighting other peoples' wars. We are broke.

Has Ron Paul broken any laws? No. Has Ron Paul been guilty of moral and ethical failures? Possibly. Contextually viewed in a different time and place, those failures may have been somewhat tolerated at the time they were delivered. They may not have been uttered or written by Paul and indeed he has said they were not. Paul has apologized for them. Could he be fibbing? Maybe. That begs the question. Do we give people the benefit of the doubt? Do we give them second chances? And why is it that writers like Kirchick leave out every good thing that a man has done?

Because being fair is not really the point. In the case of Kirchick, I see very little evidence that being fair was one of the utmost goals of his writing. At least in terms of Ron Paul. You see, guys like Kirchick want you to tolerate and accommodate their lifestyle but they do not want to accommodate yours. They see nothing wrong with the way they view the world, it is your way of viewing the world that they condemn. They lack the historical perspective of a culture that buried kids, quit smoking enmasse, and said we are going to tolerate homosexuality. All of that in my short life time. That ain't bad Mr. Kirchick. I wish that you could have seen all that. That's the way the culture ebbs and flows. 



Anonymous said...

OK, good on you to have done that research. Fact is, these allegations don't make the case for me to not support Paul. You can bet your last donut though that Obama will use this information should Paul get the nod. And use it relentlessly.

What most concerns me is his type of foreign policy would put our country into danger. I feel a vigorous and robust military is a sound investment. I think having military liaisons with as many countries as possible is good.

As far as supporting Israel, which Paul is against, that's craziness. We have only a few allies we can count on and Israel is one of them. Plus I feel we have a moral obligation to them-the $3B or so we send them is freaking peanuts and money well spent.

I believe the war in Iraq was necessary. It changed the paradigm in the ME. Iraq was a festering sore with Saddam. We could have taken him out in the first go around and should have. I would have done things differently but what's done is done.

Watch what happens there now that Obama has pulled all of our troops out and has continued his appeasement tact with Iran. It's the exact same thing Paul advocates and it's exactly why Paul is dangerous.

Paul has been right for many years about the unConstitutional policies and programs the Federal government has undertaken domestically. Again, So? All of our field is now talking about restraining government. Some more than others. I support the most fiscally conservatives ones in that field(except Paul) but I will vote for any one that gets the nomination-except Paul-his nomination would be the end of the Republican Party.

Brian said...

I understand MM. Please let me put it this way. If I need a mechanic I call a mechanic. If I need a barber I call a barber. I don't care who they are screwing, what they are saying...I just want my car fixed and my hair cut.

So it is, I will take the bad with the plenty good. We have a debt problem created by the FED. An illegal FED reserve that was not authorized in any way shape or form. The only guy that apparently knows that is Paul. He is the right guy for this job, because that is the real job. Forget about all of that other bullshit. A bankrupt country cannot help anyone. That problem is the priority. You can be a wonderful SOB, but the harsh reality is that someone has to cure this debt problem NOW or we are toast.

Anonymous said...

That's exactly right Brian. The man should be judged on his beliefs where they support his fitness to govern.

This obsession with squeaky clean images (largely a media creation) gives you the quality of candidate you've had since Eisenhower. These candidates look great on the outside because they project well, and are rotten to the core on the interior. You're much better off with someone who holds their beliefs honestly whether you agree with them or not.

Glad you're smart enough to see the difference.