"Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul"

Uma refutação definitiva do autor (apoiante de Giuliani) do smearing da New Republic [em tempos idos gostava de Mussolini] , expondo as suas distorções e colagens de diferentes frases fora do contexto, etc...e ia esquecendo-me de dizer, e de uma parte dos left-libertarians (ou center-libertarians como diz o Miguel Madeira).

No Taki's Top Drawer.

Exemplo:

"(...) The above-cited phrase about the enemy being defined “by the color of their skin” is here placed in its original context:

“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.”

In context, the author was clearly saying that people will draw unfair conclusions – that racism will increase—as a direct consequence of the Los Angeles riots. How, exactly, is that “racist”? If anything, it’s a warning that the sociological consequences of statist policies – and the failure of the elites to address them—will lead to the rise of the David Dukes of this world, if more responsible politicians don’t face them head on. In linking to the source, one wonders if Pajamas Media isn’t really trying to help the Paul campaign win over conservative Republicans – because I don’t think many would disagree with much of it. Another phrase that has been lifted out of context – “only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions:—placed in context reads quite differently:

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.”

The idea that people not to be treated as representatives of racial groups is the antithesis of bigotry. While the author of the above is most emphatically anti-racist, he is also anti-looter, anti-violence, and justifiably angry at the sight of white motorists being pulled out of their cars by thugs of whatever color. The author of TNR’s hit piece was a mere babe when the Los Angeles riots scorched the national consciousness, and his reaction to the description of the rioters—and the circumstances surrounding it—is untouched by either experience or understanding.

The crudeness of Kirchick’s cut-and-paste method shows how little he cares for the concept of truth. (...)" Justin Raimundo