print“You know Rep. Paul has scored a major moral coup when among those chastising him for his stand on illegal immigration is the author of a semi-pornographic tract, complete with a request for funds for the legal defense of an illegal alien. Yes, the prudish, proper Paul is being scolded by a “gentleman” who thinks nothing of exploiting his editorial position on a prominent forum to raise money for a Moroccan, homosexual, burlesque queen, whose résumé includes “exploits in the gay underground of the Arabic world.” …
As a man of the classical liberal, unquestionably American, Old Right, Rep. Paul is perfectly congruous in his defense of a sovereign America bounded by borders. It is his anarchist critics who belong to a different tradition—and who don’t make a lick of sense to sane Americans. …
… Positions that appeal to most normal Americans appall the libertarian foil-hat fringe.”
All that and more in my latest WorldNetDaily column, “Embrace Your Immigration Ad, Dr. Paul.”
Update # I: In reply to Barbara’s comments hereunder about the “hero” of the following “semi-pornographic tract,” linked in my column: Is this individual a worthy recipient of refugee status in the US? That’s the question. There are many foreign-born homosexuals and lesbians who do not enter the sex industry or the adult entertainment industry, but are productive individuals of high moral character. I would suggest they are better candidates for immigration than the subject of this disgusting tract, written by the shameless individual who has called Ron Paul’s illegal immigration ad “disgraceful.”
Note that the author of this “semi-pornographic tract” likens the suffering of the homosexual lad to the Resurrection. How obscene and tasteless.
Update # II (Jan. 15): On the Use of An Editorial Position to Solicit Funds For Unsavory Friends:
What would life be without the need to clarify what was crystal clear in the column, “Embrace Your Immigration Ad, Dr. Paul”?!
Was it not clear that it was not homosexuality per se that I was denouncing, but rather, 1) the quivering pornographic tone of a piece written, not for a gay porn magazine, but for a political, ostensibly respectable (but not really), website? 2) The dishonest depiction of a rather sluttish individual as a victim deserving of refugee status.
As I explained in Update # I:
There are many foreign homosexuals and lesbians (members of my family included), who live under precarious circumstances, yet have not entered the sex industry or the adult entertainment industry, but remain productive individuals of high moral character. I would suggest they are better candidates for immigration to the US than the subject of this disgusting tract.
And lastly, but easily the most unethical, the writer of the “semi-pornographic tract” exploited his editorial position—and by so doing flouted journalistic standards and ethics—to solicit funds from his readers for this individual, evidently a personal friend.
That’s deplorable.
I must conclude that my critics failed to diagnose all this as misconduct because they are themselves, very plainly, unethical.