Ron Paul and the "Far Right" Reply

Article from the New York Times.


The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies ofRon Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”

Mr. Paul often espouses positions at odds with most of the Republican Party but has assembled a diverse and loyal following.
Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one.

Far-right groups like the Militia of Montana say they are rooting for Mr. Paul as a stalwart against government tyranny.

Mr. Paul’s surprising surge in polls is creating excitement within a part of his political base that has been behind him for decades but overshadowed by his newer fans on college campuses and in some liberal precincts who are taken with his antiwar, anti-drug-laws messages.

The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.

But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.


Michael Scheuer Endorses Ron Paul for President Reply

It’s interesting to see such a stridently anti-empire analysis from such a hawkish commentator. 


Michael Scheuer is the former head of the Bin Laden unit for the CIA. He was with the CIA for 22 years. He quit in disgust after the 9-11 commission report was released. He is the best-selling author of four books on the subject of foreign policy and the Middle East, and he is a painful thorn in the side of the establishment.

Iowa’s Choice: Ron Paul or U.S. Bankruptcy, More Wars, and Many More Dead Soldiers and Marines

Two recent experiences underlined for me what Iowans will vote for next week in the field of foreign policy if they do not vote for Dr. Ron Paul. On Christmas day, I heard Chris Wallace’s program on FOX. He had a guest — Mr. Charles Lane — who made the false and scurrilous claim that Dr. Paul’s foreign policy was the same as that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s America-hating policy, a doctrine that appealed to Barack Obama for more than twenty years and whichthe President and his party are now implementing. Following this imbecilic assertion of Mr. Lane to its logical conclusion, U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines also must be ardent devotees of Rev Wright’s anti-Americanism as they donate many times more money to Dr. Paul than to all the other Republican candidates combined.

Then on 26 December, I visited Mount Vernon’s new and extraordinary multi-media museum documenting the life of George Washington. At the end of the exhibition there is video of U.S. Senators reading Washington’s Farewell Address into the record, something they appear to do every year. When I arrived in front of the video Senator John McCain was reading Washington’s clear warnings about the dangers of foreign intervention and the fatal impact of mindlessly favoring one country over another. To hear this from McCain’s interventionist, war-mongering, and Israel-is-always-right mouth was sound evidence of his hypocrisy and deceitfulness, as well as his and his senatorial colleagues’ ignorance of Washington’s ideas, and U.S. history in general.

Based on these two experiences, let us examine what Iowans voting for someone other than Ron Paul will do to an America already terribly wounded by the Republican and Democratic interventionism in the Muslim world.


28 Signs That U.S. Public Schools Are Rapidly Being Turned Into Indoctrination Centers And Prison Camps Reply

We don’t need no education. We don’t need no thought control. Burn the fucking schools.


It has been said that children are our future, and right now the vast majority of our children are being “educated” in public schools that are rapidly being turned into indoctrination centers and prison camps.  Our children desperately need to focus on the basics such as reading, writing and math, but instead a whole host of politicians, “education officials” and teachers are constantly injecting as much propaganda as they possibly can into classroom instruction.  Instead of learning how to think, our children are continually being told what to think.  Not only that, our children are also being trained how to live as subservient slaves in a Big Brother police state.  Today, nearly everything that children do in public schools is watched, monitored, recorded and tracked.  Independent thought and free expression are greatly discouraged and are often cracked down upon harshly.  If students get “out of line”, instead of being sent to see the principal they are often handcuffed, arrested and taken to the police station.  In addition, law enforcement authorities are using weapons such as pepper spray and tasers against young students in our public schools more than ever before.  Children in U.S. public schools are not learning how to live as strong individuals in the “land of the free and the home of the brave”.  Rather, they are being trained how to serve a Big Brother police state where control freaks run their entire lives.  If we continue to allow all of the liberty and freedom to be systematically drained out of our school children, then there is not going to be much hope for the future of this nation.

The following are 28 signs that U.S public schools are being turned into indoctrination centers and prison camps….


A Tale of Two Cities: Weimar and Washington Reply

Article by Philip Giraldi.


Mark Twain is credited with saying that “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today’s United States is often compared to other historic nations, whether at their prime or about to decline and fall depending on one’s own political perspective. Neoconservatives frequently eulogize Washington as a new Rome, promising a worldwide empire without end carried on the back of a Pentagon bristling with advanced weaponry. Other observers also cite Rome but are rather more sanguine, recalling how in the 5th century the empire failed dramatically and fell to barbarian hordes. Still others note the fate of the British Empire, which came apart in the wake of the Second World War, or the Soviets, whose collapse was brought about by 50 years of unsustainable military spending.

But the historical analogy that appears to be most apposite for post-9/11 Washington is that of the Weimar Republic. To be sure, any suggestion that the United States might be following the same course as Germany in the years that led to Nazism must be pursued with caution because few Americans want to believe that the descent into such extremism is even possible in the world’s most venerable constitutional republic. But consider the following: both the United States and Weimar Germany had constitutions in which checks and balances were integrated to maintain a multi-party system, the rule of law, and individual liberties. Both countries were on the receiving end of acts of terrorism that produced a dramatic and violent reaction against the presumed perpetrators of the crimes, so both quickly adopted legislation that abridged many constitutional rights and empowered the head of state to react decisively to further threats. The media fell in line, concerned that criticism would be unpatriotic.


Matt Damon Rips Into President Obama, Says He Failed to Lead Reply



Matt Damon is expressing his disdain for Barack Obama’s presidency again, this time saying that the President doesn’t have any “balls.”

Once one of Obama’s biggest cheerleaders, Damon slammed the president in a new interview with Elle magazine.

“I’ve talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level,” he said. “One of them said to me, ‘Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician.’

“You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better,” he added.


My Position on Immigration 16

Article by Michael Hutchinson of the World National Anarchist Alliance.


This is a touchy subject among some National Anarchists and Anarcho-Capitalists. The former due to worry of preservation, and the latter due to realizing that we have a welfare state right now and them not wanting to pay the bill.

In my opinion both reasons are fatally flawed. The reason that NA’s are flawed on this issue is simple. Their reason is to want to preserve their identity, yet they neglect the fact that the fucking line is meaningless. Tribes are composed of real people and property, therefore it is reasonable to want to be exclusionary in at least some regards. The line represents not actual people and their tribe, but the corrupt ideology of the Manifest Destiny. It is supporting what the state put into place. The Mexicans are ancestors of those who used to freely travel the land. People bitch about the invasion of Europe, but it is okay for us to take over the land and exclude the original inhabitants? This is not a consistent position. It is largely contradictory.

The solution for the NA’s? Keep them out of where people reside in your tribe. Are you mad that whites are not breeding enough? BREED! Have some kids! Most people I see bitching about the birthrates don’t have more than 2 kids to increase the white population when they die.

I know that I am questioning some of the founding principles of National Anarchism itself, and people will ask why I use the title for myself instead of leaving. Every school of thought has some flaws that need to be addressed. What I have been discussing here should work for those who are racialist and non-racialist. It gives both sides the chance to do what they wish in their tribe. Am I a bit angry? Yes! State borders are the function of the state and this is contradictory to the principles of anarchism. Where people in a particular tribe reside, however, is very real. THAT is not a fiction. Thus, the tribe would be within its right to include or exclude whoever it pleases.

If I have to criticize Troy Southgate to be more consistent, then so be it. With the “protect our borders” rhetoric, we will never get sympathy from those on the left. I thought our point was to unite both left and right to work together on points of agreement. We are not crypto-Fascists, but this stuff makes them suspect it.

Promote the idea of tribes and voluntary association. With these two, everyone gets what they want.

Colloquy on Thomas Edsall and "The White Working Class Reply

Article from the CPUSA’s theoretical journal. 

This fits well with my analysis of the liberal-left as the party of the New Class.


Editor:  This post is a colloquy — conversation — between Political Affairs Writers on an article by Thomas Edsall that appeared several days ago in the New York Times arguing, among other points, that Obama should disregard the so-called “white working class” in favor of a coalition of liberal  “middle-class” whites together with African-American, Latino, Asian-American and other national or racial minorities, women, and the LGBT communities to win the 2012 election.  I call this advice on how to lose the election, from a “Fox-News” democrat, or “faux Democrat”.  But since efforts to divide progressive forces and thus elect a Republican can be expected to come from all directions, it behooves us, I think, to explore the notions behind this “friendly advice” — friendly somewhat in the manner that a rope supports a hanged man!

John Case:  The thesis of this article — that only white bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces, not white workers–can be won to multinational, multi-racial positions and unity — needs to be resolutely defeated — or there will be little future to the Obama coalition in any progressive sense, in any sense that bears upon the 1% vs the 99%, that bears upon advancing either democracy, or socialism.


Is the World Really Safer Without the Soviet Union? Reply

Interesting article by Mikhail Gorbachev.


A man waves a Russian flag during a rally November 21, 1988 (MF/AA/REUTERS Pictures)

Virtually all American commentary about the end of the Soviet Union extols what the West is believed to have gained from that historic event. On this twentieth anniversary of the breakup, The Nation presents three writers who focus instead on what may have been lost. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last leader and first constitutional president, argues that a chance for a more secure and just world order was missed. Stephen F. Cohen, a historian and longtime Nation contributor, reminds readers of the political, economic and social costs to Russians themselves. And Vadim Nikitin, a US-educated Russian journalist, presents a new interpretation of pro-Soviet nostalgia.   —The Editors

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union twenty years ago, Western commentators have often celebrated it as though what disappeared from the world arena in December 1991 was the old Soviet Union, the USSR of Stalin and Brezhnev, rather than the reforming Soviet Union of perestroika. Moreover, discussion of its consequences has focused mostly on developments inside Russia. Equally important, however, have been the consequences for international relations, in particular lost alternatives for a truly new world order opened up by the end of the cold war.

Following my election as general secretary of the Communist Party in March 1985, the Soviet leadership formulated a new foreign policy agenda. One of the key ideas of our reforms, or perestroika, was new political thinking, based on the recognition of the world’s interconnectedness and interdependence. The top priority was to avert the threat of nuclear war. Our immediate international goals included ending the nuclear arms race, reducing conventional armed forces, settling numerous regional conflicts involving the Soviet Union and the United States, and replacing the division of the European continent into hostile camps with what I called a common European home.


Antiwar.Com: A Dangerous Far-Right Site? Reply

The posts in the comments thread on this are hilarious. A “watchdog” attacks….umm….Reverend Chucko Munson for linking to dangerous right-wing websites like…..umm….Antiwar.Com.

Remember, folks, preventing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in imperialist war is only a tertiary issue. What really matters is maintaining the strictest standards of ideological purity. Sure, the folks at Antiwar.Com might seem like peaceful, mellow libertarians, but linking to one “right-wing” site can lead to linking to even harder “right-wing” sites. There really is no distinction between the “soft” right and the “hard” right. The former is a gateway to the latter. “One drink is all the devil needs.” Antiwar.Com today. The return of the Third Reich tomorrow.

What contemptible trash leftoids are.

The Whole World is Watching Reply

Article by Kevin Carson.


In 1649 at St. George’s Hill in England, as recounted in the revolutionary anthem “The World Turned Upside Down,” a band of landless peasants who called themselves the Diggers tore down enclosures, built themselves cottages, and began spading up land to grow food. Their goal was to set an example for the people of England, to throw off their chains and reclaim their ancient birthright. They were eventually driven off by the local Lord of the Manor, but they survive in memory as heroes in the bloody five thousand year war between those who claim to own the Earth and those who live and work in it.

Thus it always has been, in this age-old war, going back to the time when the first landed aristocracies, by supposed right of conquest, forced those working the land to pay rent on it. We saw it reenacted throughout the twentieth century. Whenever the people of a Third World country like Guatemala or El Salvador tried to restore the land to its rightful owners, the cultivators, the United States would openly invade or secretly train and arm death squads to leave “disappeared” activists in ditches with their faces hacked off. Most starvation in the world today results not from insufficient production of food, but from enclosure of land that previously fed the people working it — by landed oligarchs in collusion with Western agribusiness — to raise cash crops for export.


Libertarianism: Thick and Thin Reply

Article by Matt Zwolinksi.

A fairly balanced discussion of “thick vs thin” libertarianism from a generally “thin” perspective.


A few months back, there arose a bit of a kerfuffle in the libertarian blogosphere over David Gordon’s reviewof Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch’s Declaration of IndependentsFor those who haven’t read it, that book is something of a freewheeling celebration of the spirit of liberty and independence in American culture – and a call for us to extend that spirit to the realm of politics. Among other things, the book celebrates the explosion of American microbreweries, the Velvet Underground, the X-Men, and Tiger Woods’ Cablinasianism.

To David Gordon, this was all very puzzling. After all, according to its subtitle, Gillespie and Welch’s book is supposed to be about “how libertarian politics can fix what’s wrong with America.” But for Gordon, following in the footsteps of Muray Rothbard, libertarianism is about one thing and one thing only: the proper use of force. Libertarianism is not a comprehensive ethical theory. It does not try to tell us what ideals we should aspire to in our personal lives, nor does it tell us much about the way that we should interact with other people. The only thing libertarianism has to say about our interpersonal relations is that it is wrong to aggress upon their person or property.


Labor and the Living Wage Reply

Article by David D’Amato.


CNNMoney reports (“Minimum wage increases for workers in eight states,” December 23) that “[w]hile some workers are worried about smaller paychecks next year, more than 1.4 million low-income earners will see their wages go up on New Year’s Day.” The story notes that these jumps emerge at a time when “the fate of the payroll tax cut [remains] in limbo.”

In the American political vernacular, people who “believe in free enterprise” oppose minimum wage laws as an affront against the employer’s right to contract with his employees. Within the current economic paradigm, however, the debate over minimum wage statutes is a red herring, a distraction from more fundamental questions about that paradigm.

Inquiries about labor’s proper wage have been central to anarchism since its birth as an explicit idea. In practical politics, those important issues are generally ignored in favor of superficial appeals to “American free enterprise.” The argument from conservative quarters is that government ought to stay out of the employment agreement.

But government is already involved in those agreements, long before the minimum wage question comes up. The boss and the worker  negotiate inside an environment that has decisively stacked the deck for the former, making invocations of the right to contract something of a cruel joke. The free market everyone keeps talking about just doesn’t exist — at least not yet.

“We might,” mused William Godwin, “examine into the abuses which have adhered to the commercial system; monopolies, charters, patents, protecting duties, prohibitions and bounties.” Godwin was as staunch an enemy of economic privilege and advocate for labor as there has ever been.


Afghanistan signs first oil deal — with China Reply

Looks like things aren’t turning out the way the neocons hoped.


China National Petroleum Corp. won the first oil deal in Afghanistan earlier this week, signing a contract with the Afghan government to develop a small oil field in the northern part of the country.

The deal, with an initial investment from CNPC of around $400 million, is expected to eventually generate $7 billion in revenues for the war torn nation.

Ex-IMPD Officer Won't Go To Jail For Arsons Reply

The System protects its own.


A former Indianapolis police officer who set a string of apartment fires won’t serve time in jail.

Jesse Russell Jr., 33, was convicted of arson in September for setting a fire at the Lake View Terrace Apartments that caused $30,000 worth of damage. He pleaded guilty to another count of arson for setting fire to a box truck in the 8400 block of East Washington Street.

Russell was sentenced Friday to three years suspended and six years on probation.

Judge Grant Hawkins expressed concern about Russell’s safety if he sentenced him to prison.

Prosecutors wanted Russell to serve prison time.

“It damages all of us, and it damages our credibility to stand in front of a jury and stand in front of our officers when they are on the witness stand, and say, ‘This is someone we trust and believe in,'” said Deputy Prosecutor Mark Busby. “When someone like Jesse Russell tarnishes that image, it tarnishes it for everybody.”

While on probation, Russell must undergo a mental evaluation and treatment and he must pay $21,000 in restitution for burning a box truck. He must be employed within 30 days or, if he’s not employed, he must perform 24 hours of community service a week.

If Russell successfully completes his probation he can come back to the court and ask for alternative misdemeanor sentencing.


'I'm a cop, I can do whatever I want' off-duty policeman shouts before 'executing guy in bar' over a game of darts Reply

Sociopaths in Blue.


An off-duty police officer has been charged with executing a man in a sports bar – after an argument over a game of darts.

Riverside County sheriff’s deputy Dayle Long, 42, allegedly shot Samuel Vanettes, 36, three times, leaving him to die on the floor of the bar in Murrieta, California.

It is reported that Long, who had been drinking alone, struck up a conversation with Vanettes and his friends at Spelly’s Bar and Grille before the shooting.

An altercation allegedly broke out after the police officer told one of the friends ‘I’m better at darts than you are’, Chris Hull, 39, told

‘My buddy says, “Aw, you suck at darts”. (The man) says, “That’s why I’m a cop, I can do whatever I want to do”.’

Hull tsaid his friend asked; ‘Really, you can do anything?’

The police officer then pulled out his gun, Hull claimed and after the group repeatedly asked him to put it away he ‘pops three rounds into my friend Sam’.

The ten-year department veteran appeared at the Southwest Justice Center in French Valley in a red prison uniform, on Friday charged with murder.

This just goes to show the mindset of police these days.

16 Year Old Girl Charged With Terrorism Conspiracy Reply



OTTUMWA — An Ottumwa High School student has been charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Police arrested Emily Kay Six, 16, Ottumwa, on Thursday. Officials said they began investigating after Six allegedly began trying to recruit students for what police called “a plan to harm a number of students.”

The charge is a Class D felony. Six was taken to a juvenile detention facility following her arrest.

Police Chief Jim Clark said Six’s plans were stopped before they could be acted upon. The investigation is ongoing, though, and Clark would not comment on whether others may have been aware of Six’s efforts.

Under the charge of terrorism, Emily faces:

-Extraordinary rendition into the hands of foreign governments where she could be legally tortured to give up information on her fellow conspirators.

-Indefinite detention without the right to a trial.

-Incarceration at a military installation, overseas or domestically, under military jurisdiction.

-Water boarding, sleep deprivation, deafening sounds, and other forms of “approved” torture at the hands of US authorities.

-Summary execution by presidential order.

-and other heinous violations of her civil rights.

While clearly I don’t think Emily will face any of these possible outcomes, what if Emily was a dark skinned 30 year old woman conspiring with men of similar ilk in a local temple?  Does that somehow change the appropriate response of the State?  If so, why?

The fact that the State is coming after a 16 year old with terrorism charges should frighten the day lights out of you.  We can rest assured that such charges will become more common place as society devolves in to civil unrest caused by the implosion of the monetary system.  The State could have charged her with conspiracy to commit murder, mayhem, assault, or any other personal type of crime that people commit against one another; yet they didn’t.  They chose to come after her with terrorism charges because these are the most vague laws that provide the State with the most latitude in prosecuting her.

When it comes to putting people behind bars, the State always takes the path of least resistance.

Who is a Ron Paul supporter? Reply

From The Washington Post.

“Paul’s supporters are disproportionately young, independent, non-interventionist, non-Christian and perhaps most telling, dedicated.”

As I’ve said before, RP is a prelude to the next wave of radicalism. A new generation of rebellious youth committed to smashing imperialism is precisely what we need. After all, that’s what made the 1960s.


Ron Paul supporters are certainly their own breed.

Despite the candidate’s success in expanding his political brand in recent weeks and months, those who support him remain a very distinct segment of the Republican electorate, as evidenced by a new poll in Iowa.

The Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG survey is the latest poll to show Paul leading in the Hawkeye State’s caucuses. His 27.5 percent-to-25.3 percent lead on Newt Gingrich is within the margin of error, but it reflects a race that appears to be headed in the good doctor’s direction.


When Fascism Was On the Left 3

My latest column at AlternativeRight.Com.


The conventional left/right model of the political spectrum holds Fascism and Marxism to be polar opposites of one another. Marxism is regarded as an ideology of the extreme Left while Fascism supposedly represents an outlook that is about as far to the Right as one can go. A title recently translated into English by Portugal’s Finis Mundi PressEric Norling’s Revolutionary Fascism, does much to call the perception of Fascism, conceived of as it was by Mussolini and his cohorts, as an ideology of the extreme Right into question.

This work was originally published in 2001 and author Norling, a historian and lawyer, is a native Swede who now resides in Spain. Norling observes that throughout the entirety of his early life, from childhood until World War One, Mussolini was every bit as much as man of the Left as contemporaries such as Eugene V. Debs. He was what would later come to be known as a “red diaper baby” (meaning the child of revolutionary socialist parents). As a young man, Mussolini himself was a Marxist, fervently anticlerical, went to Switzerland to evade compulsory military service, and was arrested and imprisoned for inciting militant strikes. Eventually, he became a leader in Italy’s Socialist Party and he was imprisoned once again in 1911 for his antiwar activities related to Italy’s invasion of Libya. Mussolini was so prominent a socialist at this point in his career that he won the praise of Lenin who considered him to be the rightful head of a future Italian socialist state.


What is the Green Republican Coalition Strategy? Reply

From Progressives for Ron Paul.


This strategy is a complement of the Blue Republican strategy, founded by Robin Koerner. Koerner has eloquently described the very obvious ways that Ron Paul appeals to independent, moderate, libertarian and progressive Democrats. The Blue Republican Facebook page is a place of hospitality and ideas unlike so many highly partisan pages on the net.

Koerner is a classical liberal Brit on his way to becoming an American citizen. His form  of liberalism looks very close to Ron Paul’s libertarianism, and like that of Ron Paul’s, is totally consistent.  I have yet to find any disagreement he has with Ron Paul on policy.

Koerner and I have been carrying on a friendly debate. We agree that Ron Paul is right on ending the wars and occupations we are in and bringing home troops from bases around the world. We also agree that Ron Paul is the only major Republican candidate who has taken very seriously the farewell speech warning of President Eisenhower concering the dangerous threat of the military industrial complex.  We believe that we are spending far too much on needless and often counter-productive weapons and weapon systems and that this is causing tremendous harm to our economy and to our constitutional representative democracy.

Why Neo-Cons Hate Ron Paul's Honest Foreign Policy Reply

From Alt-Market.Com


This article, originally titled “Ron Paul: Propagandist Or Prophet?”, was written by Jeremy R. Hammond and published at Foreign Policy Journal

Ron Paul is “the best-known American propagandist for our enemies”, writes Dorothy Rabinowitz in a recent Wall Street Journal hit piece. To support the charge, she writes that Dr. Paul “assures audiences” that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 “took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions”. It’s “True,” she writes, that “we’ve heard the assertions before”, but only “rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us”—and, she adds, he doesn’t care about the victims of the attacks.

The vindictive rhetoric aside, what is it, exactly, that Ron Paul is guilty of here? It is completely uncontroversial that the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission Report, for instance, points out that Osama bin Laden “stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”

Notice that Rabinowitz doesn’t actually deny that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by such U.S. policies as these. Rather, Ron Paul’s sin is that he actually acknowledges this truth. The fact that other political figures choose to ignore or deny this fact hardly reflects poorly on Dr. Paul. Refusing to bury one’s head deeply up one’s arse, as Rabinowitz is so obviously willing to do, is hardly a character trait to be faulted.