I've already debunked it:
The newsletters were published for decades. As a monthly publication that went on for at least 30 years, we can estimate that there were NEARLY 400 newsletters in total.
James Kirchick even concedes that nothing racist/homophobic appeared from the 1970's until the late 1980's. In this youtube clip, he asserts that the racist stuff occurred "when paul was out of congress." (incidentally, he proves himself a liar with this statement, that contradicts his '20 years of invective' accusation made minutes earlier)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURO1djA_jA
Likewise, nothing racist appeared in any issues after 1994.
Most issues even in the bad time (when ron had nothing to do with the newsletter) were not racist. Ones regarding David Duke criticized his past, but expressed support for his views on free markets.
It also should be noted that David Duke ran for office in 1992 DENOUNCING racism and his past. Yes, Duke has subsequently proved to be a racist and a fraud, but this is the context of the time period.
For more exposition on Duke, see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClduC...eature=related
Here is proof that the good Dr. was NOT involved in any way shape or form after April of 1988:
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/Investm...rApril1988.pdf (The Dr. was the editor of the newsletter at this time, as Kirchick points out)
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/Investm...terMay1988.pdf (but a month later, Paul is not listed as having ANY ROLE in the newsletter; Lew Rockwell is now editor.)
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-de262573a129 (the newsletters, out of hundreds, that kirchick published)
When you put it all together, there are exactly TWO racist newsletters. The other ones merely point out politically incorrect truths about MLK. Divisive, un-Pauline, and unnecessary, (considering the great things MLK did accomplish) but hardly racist, and say good things about David Duke's campaign. (see above.)
There are a number of homophobic newsletters, to be sure. Four in total, which makes it harder to totally debunk charges of homophobia. (unlike charges of racism,of which there is no case at all) But the defense of Paul's does pass certain scrutiny.
In this interview, for example, Paul doesn't buy into this interviewer's homophobia. He claims that what makes him more tolerant of gays is his medical training.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
But in the newsletters the ghostwriter blatantly contradicts this, saying that "Ron's" medical training makes him see through the lies of the gay agenda." In other words, this guy is directly contradicting Paul.
This isn't an anamoly. One of the anti-MLK newsletters, the author, (presumably Paul) brags about voting for a Federal Holiday for that "fraud." (1)
Yet congressional records show Ron Paul TWICE voted for the MLK holiday! (2)
So there you have it. Out of hundreds of newsletters, Kirchick cherry-picked two racist and four homophobic ones, in a time period where Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters publication.
In my view, it was Lew Rockwell who wrote the newsletters. It certainly looks like his writing style, and hardcore "paleo," ideology of the time. Today, Lew is no longer a racist or homophobe, and is a friend of Ron's and all of us. People change, and who here doesn't have flawed friends?
Ron believes in laissez-faire management, whether it is in government or personal life. People do make mistakes, (as was proven in a few of these hundreds of newsletters) but far more often, people are to be trusted and individualism and independence are to be cherished.
1-
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf
2-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/71/
EDIT-
Finally, the icing on the cake:
Kirchick, who throughly researched Ron Paul INTENT on smearing him, admitted in a casual exchange with a fellow gay man that even HE doesn't believe the good doctor to be a racist, anti-semite, or homophobe.
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/200...n-paul-is.html
And this was AFTER he had obtained the newsletters.
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/200...rin-szoka.html
I consider myself a moderate supporter of gay rights, (insofar as I am a traditionalist, but support voluntary associations and try not to be judgmental) but the author of that site hits the nail on the head:
James Kirchick is a liar, charlatan, and hypocrite.
Connect With Us