Sociologist have long known that the difficulties one has to overcome is somehow related to the likelihood of success. Some have posited that it is even a good predictor of the measure of success. They call this phenomena, “adversity quotient.” The higher the quotient (the greater the adversity), the greater the likelihood of success.

Thus, when someone manages to overcome a great adversity, the odds of great success increase.

It looks like our good doctor’s adversity quotient may well have just gone up, substantially. The tide of public opinion would seem to be turning in his favor in regard to the horrendous accusations made against him by The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick.

Even the talking heads in the mainstream media are starting to concede that Dr. Paul is not a racist:

“I gotta tell you Congressman, you and I have talked a lot over these last several months and when I saw these newsletters I didn’t know anything about them until I saw that article in The New Republic. I was pretty shocked because it certainly didn’t sound like the Ron Paul that I’ve come to know and our views have come to know all this time.”Wolfe Blitzer, CNN, The Situation Room

At this point, it even seems possible that Paul’s support amongst minorities might increase as a result of this kerfuffle.

Thank you, Mr. Kirchick.



“So the media has found the chink (can I use that word, or is it’s other meaning too offensive for people…) in Ron Paul’s armor? It’s been said before, no candidate is perfect. At least Paul’s clearly admitted that more than once. Even if the man is flawed, like we all are, the message of liberty and personal responsibility still rings true.” — posted by James Moore on


“The chink (can I use that word, or is it’s other meaning too offensive for people…)”

You should chew on such turns of phrase thoroughly, be niggardly in their use, and keep your speech spic and span, lest you get a wop on the head.
– posted by paulie on

At least there are three adults with a sense of humor left in America.

Come on folks, let’s have a little perspective. The country is going to hell in a hand basket, and we are apoplectic about some 15 year-old words that probably weren’t even written by the only man in America who is pushing forward on a platfom that could save us. What are we thinking?

“So Megan, what you are say(ing) is, you and your friends are tolerant of diversity, as long as it is from a pre-approved list. I’m sorry, but that isn’t a very good credential for a civil libertarian. Avram Grumer got it right instead, when he said, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire.” Any true civil libertarian would be out in front on this, defending Dr. Paul’s right to any wacky opinion whatsoever; (i)nstead they are all ducking and running for cover. For shame.” Posted by Chillie B. | January 10, 2008 7:25 PM (on the New Atlantic webpage)

“The Iranian “provocation” in the straits of Hormuz has set the stage for a new “crisis” manufactured wholly by the War Party, the rationale for which is uncritically accepted by our passive “mainstream” media. We are expected to believe that five minuscule speedboats “menaced” the USS Hopper, a destroyer armed with missiles; the cruiser USS Port Royal; and the USS Ingraham, a frigate. That’s rather like five gnats “menacing” a trio of elephants. Oh, but that’s not all. In addition to intercepting the American flotilla, CNN reports the Iranians supposedly issued explicit threats:

“In one radio transmission, the Iranians told the U.S. Navy: ‘I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes,’ the U.S. military officials told CNN.”

The Iranians, for their part, say nothing untoward occurred that doesn’t happen all the time in the Gulf: they simply asked the ships to identify themselves, and it was all very routine.

I challenge anyone to look at the following video and tell me honestly they hear or see anything that looks like an Iranian “provocation.” It’s all very murky and dubious:”

– (Justin Raimondo)

What do we know?

January 9, 2008

The Reverend has refused to release the contents of the 600 sermons he preached to fundamentalist Southern Baptist congregations, and no copies or recordings have become public so far. However we can guess the contents.

Even after Huckabee entered politics and presumably started to watch his mouth, he still couldn’t keep from spouting off about interning AIDS victims. It is easy to imagine that what he was saying before he went into politics was a lot scarier — especially given that, as recently as November, he was personally hanging out with homophobes, and even personally attending a Christian Reconstruction fundraiser held in his name.

The Reconstructionist, also sometimes called Dominionists, are the Christian “Taliban.” Their aim? To overthrow of the Constitution, and implement Mosaic law in America. The movement first came to light under the leadership of the now fortunately deceased Rousas John Rushdoony. Unfortunately his followers continue on, lead and supported by Rushdoony’s son-in-law, home-school activist Gary North, along TV preachers such as James Kennedy,Huckabee fundraiser, Steven Hotz, and even international groups like Watchmen on the Walls.

Just to be clear, the Reconstuctionist playbook would allow for the stoning of homosexuals (along with adulterers, heretics and a long list of others.). Why put the little buggers in pens when you can just kill them? It’s a lot cheaper if you don’t have to feed them. Hmmmm, where have we seen that line of thinking before? You’d think that someone would be alarmed.

So where is the (supposedly liberal) media’s effort to dig up copies or recordings of those old Huckabee sermons?

You would think that to gay journalists, such as Jamie Kirchick, that Huckabee’s association with fag killers would be of a lot more interest than Ron Paul’s supposed association with fag name callers. But you’d be wrong.

Instead the Reconstructions are given a hall pass, even though they are infinately more racist and homophobic. The media even let Huckabee keep his pass after he refused to recant his homophobic AIDS comment months ago. It is easy to guess that this is because both the Reconstructionists and Huckabee are devout defenders of an interventionist U.S. foreign policy formed around the best interests of particular other country. Paul, however, speak the ultimate heresy by suggesting that American tax dollars and America’s military should be tasked with defending America.

Ron Paul has at least taken responsibility and apologized for the nasty language that a contractor printed, without his knowledge, in a newsletter that was apparently licensed to print under Paul’s name. Huckabee however, is sticking by his homophobic positions, and keeping his old papers safely tucked away.

And no one seems to care, not even Jamie Kirchick.

Hi Berin,

Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans] party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls “the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history”]

Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]


Blood on his hands

January 9, 2008

The lasting contribution of Ron Paul’s campaign will be in it having incited neo-cons masquerading as libertarians to expose themselves. Namby-pamby liberal accusations about hurtful speech would not scare off any true advocate of liberty. (Take note, Andrew.) However, fair-weather patriots will run for cover and neo-con moles will exploit such accusations as a way to further undermine true libertarianism. Jamie Kirchick has exposed himself as a foreign agent, a mole working to undermine American liberty. Further, by undermining the sole anti-war voice in the presidential campaign, he has weakened the anti-war movement. That means American money will continue to pay that much longer for the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians. How many more, another 10,000, another 100,000? We can’t know, but that additional blood will be on the hands of Mr. Kirchick. The irony is that he may not care.