The MSM Finally Starts Vetting Ron Paul. And It Ain’t Pretty.

Be careful what you wish for, Paulites. Now that people are paying attention to your Messiah, they’re paying attention to the whole story.

Having made my objections to Ron Paul abundantly clear—see, for instance, here,  here, and here—I don’t need to rehash them. Here, a quick roundup of the latest developments will suffice.
  • December 14: The Washington Examiner’s Phillip Klein highlights Paul’s habit of not only slandering Israel, but doing so on Iranian state TV.
  • December 16: After getting smacked down by Michele Bachmann the night before, Paul retaliates by smearing her: “She hates Muslims. She wants to go get ‘em.”
  • December 17: In the Weekly Standard, James Kirchick follows up on his original expose of the newsletters, reviewing the vile content, the money Paul made off of them, and Paul’s cozy relationship with raving lunatic Alex Jones.
  • December 18: former longtime Paul aide Eric Dondero tells the American Spectator that Paul didn’t write those bigoted, conspiratorial newsletters, “but he did read them, every line of them, off his fax machine at his Clute office before they were published. He would typically sign them at the bottom of the last page giving his okay, and re-fax them to Jean to go to the printer.”
  • December 20: Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid reports on Paul’s vocal support for cyber-anarchist “whistleblower” outfit WikiLeaks and their source, Bradley Manning, whom Paul calls a “hero” and “patriot” for indiscriminately leaking classified information.
    December 20: At Townhall, John Hawkins highlights 12 quotes that render Paul unelectable.
  • December 20: RedState’s Leon Wolf compiles the evidence that Paul is a 9/11 Truther.
  • December 21: RedState’s Leon Wolf reveals Ron Paul’s wildly anti-libertarian 2008 presidential endorsements, including Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.
  • December 21: Paul loses his cool in a CNN interview about the newsletters, complaining that he’s addressed it so many times everyone should be satisfied with the (non-)answers he’s already given, flatly claiming he didn’t write them, never saw the bigoted content, “and that’s it.” He denies that he made nearly a million dollars on them (“I’d like to see that money”). When the interviewer says it’s a legitimate question because “these things are pretty incendiary,” Paul shoots back, “because of people like you,” takes off his microphone, and walks out.    
  • December 21: Jonah Goldberg finds 1988 video of Ron Paul claiming federal drug prohibition is a ruse to keep drug prices high to help the CIA fund its operations through drug trafficking. In the video, Paul also suggests electing George HW Bush, a former CIA chief, to the presidency would be the equivalent of the Russians putting an ex-KGB official in office.
    December 22: Video surfaces of Paul in 1995, promoting the newsletters he supposedly knew so little about: “Long term, I don’t think political action is worth very much if you don’t have education […] I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter that sort of covered all these areas.  And it covered a lot about what was going on in Washington, and financial events, and especially some of the monetary events.”
Let’s cut to the chase: making Ron Paul the Republican nominee would guarantee that Barack Obama gets a second term. We all know how Democrats love to tar their opponents as cranks and racists, even when there’s no evidence to support the smear; what do you suppose they could do with a candidate that does have such baggage, and lots of it?

We’d see the newsletters’ greatest hits—such as the ode to David Duke, the ranting about “terrorists” that “can be identified by the color of their skin”, the warnings to bar gays from restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”—saturate the airwaves and printed page. We’d get a refresher on every conspiracy & crackpot Paul has ever flirted with. We’d even see the president who killed Osama bin Laden credibly cast himself as a tougher wartime leader than the guy who opposed the operation.

And most importantly, all of this poison and insanity would be used not just to torpedo a presidential candidate, but also to discredit the principles of limited government and constitutionalism he claims to speak for. Every libertarian and conservative principle Paul allegedly embodies would be linked in the public’s minds to racism, paranoia. Make no mistake: the Right would be set back years, if not decades.

I gave up on expecting morals and good sense from libertarians a long time ago, but conservatives surely aren’t going to hand the Left victory on a silver platter. Are we?

Around the Web

Is WikiLeaks an agent of liberty? No way, says Janet Daley.

Another powerhouse from my NRB colleague, Megan Fox: 28 Revolting Quotes That Define the Pro-Abortion Left.

The Other McCain has the scoop on a lefty academic and commentator who’s been charged with carrying on a sexual relationship with his own daughter.

Check out this priceless takedown of Andrew Sullivan’s never-ending dishonesty.

Doug Powers slaps down Bernie Sanders’ class-warfare demagoguery.

Has the Republican Party learned nothing? (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way).

Investors’ Business Daily has more on the not-so-dreamy effects of ObamaCare on the medical profession.

And in Iran, Stuxnet, the world’s early Christmas gift, keeps on giving.

Around the Web

Check out Part 1 and Part 2 of Suzanne Venker’s 3-part NewsReal series on why marriage matters.

You’ve gotta be kidding me: someone’s turning Maureen Dowd into a sexed-up action heroine in a new comic book? It’s so absurd that it would be hilarious…if not for the fact that the plot is yet another way in which entertainment outlets are injecting a false narrative of the Valerie Plame saga into the national consciousness. Historical revisionism is no laughing matter.

First Geraldo Rivera revealed how “open-minded” he was about what “really” happened on 9/11, and now losertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano has joined the Truther brigade. It’s way past time for Fox News to can both these clowns.

Comedy great Leslie Nielsen, dead at 84. I plan to take some time this weekend to watch Airplane! in his memory; I’d encourage all of you to do the same.

Donald Douglas slaps around a richly-deserving losertarian blogger.

Neil reminds us that ethanol is a dud.

And this Thanksgiving, I’m really, really thankful for a little wonder-virus called Stuxnet.

Odds & Ends

Rock for Life’s YouTube page has new video of numerous pro-life Congressmen taking Planned Parenthood to task. Glad to see some Republicans still have spines…especially after this moment of GOP brilliance.

Your brain on drugs: Frederick Douglass
belongs to the Left?

Ever wonder how Jesse Jackson feels now that Barack Obama’s stolen the spotlight?
Well, now we know. Surprised? Me neither.

In case you missed it, “the father of Quebec Medicare” has
second thoughts about his creation.

Iran is
faking photographs of missile tests. Yep, reaaaal stable regime there…(hat tip: Jihad Watch)

Bobby Jindal, conservative champion? Sadly, his “new politics”
seem awfully familiar, too. Conservatives need to be careful not to build up fairytale heroes (*cough*Fred!*cough*), but I still think we should keep an eye out on Mitt, as well as Sarah Palin.

The Content of Obama’s Character; UPDATE: Now with Kos Feedback!

My latest letter to the editor:

A recent letter asked, “Why does everybody have such a problem with a member of a minority achieving a position of either prominence or power in our society?” as if racism is why voters really oppose Barack Obama. That’s completely false, and this voter opposes Obama because of his utter lack of competence, courage, and character.

Competence: Iran and North Korea’s nuclear pursuits, and the desire of Islamic jihadists for nuclear weapons, make today’s world very dangerous, yet Obama pledges to cut investments in missile defense. He also voted against the recent bill preserving our intelligence-gathering capabilities, which received broad bipartisan support, passing 68-29.

Courage: On June 4, Obama said Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital. But after a single day of Palestinian complaints, he backpedaled, now saying the Jews and Palestinians will have to negotiate it for themselves. Such cowardice leaves little doubt that Obama would fold like a house of cards in his no-precondition, direct talks with Iran’s Ahmadinejad.

Character: No responsible father who values honesty could possibly expose his children to the foul lies of Jeremiah Wright. And nobody with a shred of decency or compassion could reach Obama’s extremes on abortion. In Illinois he fought against legal protection for fully-born babies who survived their abortions. Even after being separated from their mothers and gaining full physical independence, Obama thinks these children should be starved to death. Delivery-ward nurse Jill Stanek testified twice before Obama for born-alive infant protection, offering her firsthand experiences and pictures of premature births. She says her efforts “didn’t faze him at all.”

Conservatives are judging Obama not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Unfortunately for him, that’s a contest in which he doesn’t stand a chance.

UPDATE: It seems I’ve
made a new friend on the Daily Kos! Unfortunately, Pan Zareta’s refutation is so devoid of substance it’s laughable. If you’re out there, Pan, I’d be happy to clear up any confusion you might have; comment away!

Near-Confrontation at Sea

This was a close one:

According to CNN, the U.S. ships were “harrassed” and received “threatening” radio transmissions from the Iranians, including a communication that included remarks to the effect that the American boats would be blown up. The report was later confirmed by the Pentagon.

No shots fired, but at least one U.S. ship was making preparations to fight, according to the report. Five Iranian ships were said to be involved in the incident, which took place in the Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping channel for Middle Eastern crude.

Obviously, this is part of Bushilter Co.’s master plan to keep his power by drumming up fear about innocent Muslims. Obviously.

The Lovefest Continues

Ah, yes, dear Mr. Freiburger and his
little neocon fantasies. What do you have to say about the fact that Iran curtailed its nuclear weapons program in 2003, yet King George just recently acknowledged the same fact?

The “fact” our lib-of-the-day refers to is actually a National Intelligence Estimate—which,
according to Alan Dershowitz, “falls hook, line and sinker for a transparent bait and switch tactic employed not only by Iran, but by several other nuclear powers in the past.” This, by the by, would be the same Iran that’s still doing this. And this. And this. Yeah, I really feel good about giving these guys a clean bill of health.

President Bush has been caught in a lie. Or is it a situation for people like you, Calvin, that you think the president’s own intelligence “cooked” the intelligence?

First, no he hasn’t. Second, what does “you think the president’s own intelligence cooked the intelligence” even mean? Is it a vain attempt at wit?

Maybe this quote by Herman Goering (he was a Nazi, in case you don’t know, since you supposedly received such a poor education at Fond du Lac High School) at the Nuremberg Trials can explain it better for you:

Such a poor education? I never said anything of the sort. Shouldn’t we expect
a college professor to read a little more carefully, and get the basic facts right when he attacks someone?

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding to the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country.”

Predictably, our friend sees Nazis around every corner. Never mind that the attack, and the continuing threat, are all too real. It figures.

On second thought, I’m trying to talk logically to a neocon.

“Trying” being the operative word…

Recap: Huck, Mitt & Fred

Looks like I spoke too soon about the potency of Mike Huckabee’s campaign—his standing has improved pretty dramatically in recent weeks. I still can’t see him winning the nomination, but I can see him further dividing the cultural Right, thereby helping Giuliani’s chances.

Of course, once people take notice of you, the warts get noticed too—and Huck’s got warts in spades.
This Hot Air post links to a lot of the details, and there’s even reason to question his credibility on his main/only selling point, social conservatism. Most recently, Huck’s been taking flak for his foreign policy vision, which is peppered with complaints to the effect of “George Bush has been too mean,” both to the international community and to Iran (yes, that Iran).

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has picked up a couple major endorsements: National Review
makes a compelling argument that not only is he the best man for the job, but his nomination is necessary to keeping the Republican coalition together; and Judge Robert Bork trusts Romney to shape the Supreme Court as President. Mitt’s much-speculated-about “Faith in America” speech (transcript here, video here) was outstanding, as well. From religion’s actual role in our nation’s past to its proper role in her present, he brought these truths to the public eye with eloquence and passion.

It hasn’t all been clear skies for Mitt, though. Romney’s recent Meet the Press appearance
highlighted his past willingness to consider a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as well the fact that he stands by his support for an assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill.

On immigration, I’d be lying if I said Romney’s changes of opinion don’t give me pause, and I don’t begrudge anyone for mistrusting him. But again, there are also reasons to be wary of his opponents (check the Hot Air link above for the dirt on Huck, and my archives for Fred Thompson). Speaking of immigration, though, Romney’s not the only one who’s seen the light—here’s the “consistent conservative”
arguing for a path to citizenship, every bit as recently as Mitt, if not more so.

As for guns, Romney is wrong. But every member of the Republican field is lacking in some way. It’s our job, then, to take a hard look at our priorities as conservatives. If gun rights are your number-one issue, then by all means, vote for Fred. I’m a full-spectrum conservative who understands and values the right to bear arms as well as the next guy. But I consider one million abortions annually a greater injustice than assault weapon bans, so the right to life takes precedence—and
there (as well as marriage), Thompson is lacking. Further, as I’ve argued before, the fact that Mitt is sticking to his guns (no pun intended) seems to run counter to the idea that he’s a phony who abandons his opinions for expediency.

Rolling Out the Red Carpet for Evil

Michelle Malkin has a ton of coverage on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University. Which do you think is worse: idiotic commentary that the Tehran Tyrant’s visit is a matter of free speech, or idiotic statements about the event by the man charged with protecting us from said tyrant?

"The only way he should be greeted in the United States is with an indictment under the Geneva Convention."

So said Mitt Romney earlier today in a letter (PDF link) urging the United Nations to revoke its invitation to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmandinejad. He also pulls no punches in calling out the UN’s record of human rights failures, and threatening to “reconsider [America’s] level of support and funding for the United Nations.” This is exactly what we need the next commander-in-chief to tell the world.