I would like to remind you that sweeping labels like “wackos” can catch up a lot of intelligent people or people who while normally nuts, are actually very right about something deemed a “conspiracy theory.” The idea that a new constitution was being drafted instead of changes to the Articles of Confederation would have indeed sounded like a kooky conspiracy theory during that convention, but it happened in secret nonetheless. The European Union, despite having an official existence of less than 20 years, celebrated its 50th anniversary not that long ago. This is why a number of people don’t think Ron Paul is a nut when he talks about the North American Union (there is precedent for this sort of behavior).

As to those attitudes being the primary reason why the War on Drugs is maintained, that is bunch of pure bullshit. There are many reasons why it is maintained, not the least of which is that most white and asian families don’t want their own kids using drugs, and there are plenty of people who damn the consequences and go gung ho out of principle. Racism is by now an afterthought to most supporters of the War on Drugs. It’d rank right up there with marijuana makes you smell like shit after you’ve smoked up.

http://juliansanchez.com/notes/archives/2008/01/one_last_word.php

But if you’re really willing to bite on the wild-eyed Orange-Line Mafia conspiracy crap Raimondo’s selling, be my guest. No one is forcing you to read this site.

I stopped advocating for Paul because I learned that he and Rockwell made a cynical, calculated decision to profit politically and financially by appealing to racists and wackos. Paul helped perpetuate the attitudes that still plague the drug war and the criminal justice system — the stuff I write about every day.

It’s that simple. I liked him. The stuff in the newsletters offended me, took me off guard, and made me embarrassed for having supported him. Also taught me a lesson about ever getting too excited about a politician. In the end, it’s still a politician.

If you can read those newsletters and not find them offensive, well, that’s your problem, not mine. And if you don’t find them offensive, then maybe this site isn’t for you. Try VDARE.com.

Yes, you can isolate a few of the passages, and they seem fairly innocuous. But many are openly bigoted. And taken together, I don’t think anyone with a lick of common sense can dispute the ugliness and the blatant appeal to the basest of prejudices they represent. And by appealing to those prejudices, the newsletters also reinforced them. I want no part of that.

I’m also done commenting on all of this.

Perhaps you’re drawing your conclusion about his disdain for you being due to your Fox column from somewhere else, as he certainly never says any such thing in that piece. But I gathered that his disdain centered more around your willingness to jump on the anti-Paul bandwagon, apparently without first reading the entire context of the quotes.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. DO NOT BLINK.

The previous time was when they published whats-his-face talking about pro-war libertarians and Ron Paul. What was that guy’s name? I totally forget and I am too lazy to look it up.

But I’ll give you one example: He accuses me of being part of his Koch-Cato-Neocon conspiracy. Why? Because I write a column for Fox News. Never mind that I have used that column to sing Ron Paul’s praises three times (that I can remember), and have used it to bash Bush, the war, and neocons dozens of times. No, in Raimondo’s world, merely writing for Fox is proof enough that I’m pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-neocon.

Check out Justin Raimondo’s take on the attacks on Ron Paul by beltway libertarians. Then compare that to David Boaz’s outrage over Ron Paul here.

Just consider that Faux News uses tame commenters who diverge from the party line to give themselves “free and balanced” cover, much as the Republicans use Lieberman to give themselves “bipartisan” cover. Consider Hannity’s sidekick.

If that’s the case, they’ve never read what I write for Fox.

And if they can’t trouble themselves to actually read what I’ve written before denouncing me, then I’m not going to bother taking them seriously.

I currently work for a company that gets a big chunk of its business from the ethanol industry. Previous to that, I worked at an ad agency that received tax money for job training and hiring. Yeah, I don’t like those practices. But my opposition isn’t nearly as important as providing my family with a stable income.

That said, I recognize the merit of your “inside the belly of the pig” argument. The problem is that people think you’re the pig’s friend.

What tripe!

2) Fox publishes whatever I send them. They rarely if ever censor me (the only time I can recall is when I wrote a column directly attacking Bill O’Reilly). If I can reach the Fox audience with a libertarian message, why wouldn’t I? How is it any different than, say, a libertarian writing a column for the New York Times or Washington Post? Or should principled people turn down that opportunity, too? Should we only write for publications read by other libertarians? How exactly does that advance the cause of liberty?

Also, it’s awfully easy to demand other people show the courage of their convictions by resigning. Even Beltway wonks have to make a living. You’re never going to work for an organization that you agree with 100 percent of the time. Should all principled libertarians also resign from corporations that engage in rent seeking? To imply that you’re implicitly endorsing everything said organization does because you haven’t resigned is pretty silly. If that were the case, we’d all be living off the grid, stocking bottled water and living off subsistence farming somewhere in Idaho.