James Kirchick, the author of the New Republic blog post that attempted to smear presidential candidate Ron Paul with racists statements penned by unknown authors and published in newsletters bearing his name more than a decade ago, seems to have an ax to grind with the good doctor.

Kirchick, a formerly leftist, now supposedly conservative gay activist, interviewed Ron Paul in July of last year after Paul - along with the other GOP white house contenders, gave his assessment of the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He later criticized Paul in an early smear-piece entitled 'Ron Paul, Libertarian Bigot?' published on AFF Brainwash.com.

AFF Brainwash is a site claiming to be conservative/libertarian and which ostensibly supports “innovative thinkers and writers.”  Well, apparently only if they agree with the gay agenda.

The site is owned by “America’s Future Foundation” (AFF) which carries the same logo. Its executive director is David Kirby, listed in Wikipedia as a former regular contributor to the New York Times, and on the AFF web site as a former intern to Senator Ted Kennedy. He is a gay activist who has published scores of articles on a pro-gay web site called “The Advocate”  - particularly the one just linked to in which he fawns over Hillary Clinton for her pro-gay views..

Kirchick is part of an aggressive, divisive, and reactionary gay sub-culture that will not accept  anything less than total compliance with the goals of the gay agenda, from anyone. It is an agenda that attempts to destroy the holders of even slightly “non-conforming” opinions. The agenda’s stated goal:  unqualified acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream America, without any reservations, by anyone - or else!

Kirchick’s list of no less than 23 articles on gay issues penned since 2005 attests to his bristling contempt at any remark, by any public or even semi-public personality, who has any reservations whatsoever concerning gays, their lifestyles, their sexual practices, and their desire to inundate mainstream consciousness with a ceaseless barrage of one guilt-trip after another.

Why anyone should feel guilty about disagreeing with the gay agenda is, of course, always left unanswered.  If differing viewpoints are desirable for “vigorous public debate”, and if it’s okay for gays to voice their opinions at every turn, then why would it not be okay for Ron Paul to state his opinion that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is a good one and should be left in place? After all, Paul added, the issue isn’t whether a person belongs to one group or another, it’s whether individuals act acceptably or not. That’s what should determine when someone should be punished, not whether he or she belongs in one group or another.

But apparently, Kirchick wasn’t happy with that answer. He feels that gays are being discriminated against as a group, so their concerns must be addressed as a group, and he wanted an unconditional admission from Paul that he would accept openly gay men and women in the US military if he was to become president. Naturally, he was disappointed. Paul doesn’t tell people what they want to hear. He just tells them what he thinks, and he has the audacity to back his thinking up with facts,  logic, and an undying devotion to principle.

Ron Paul was smeared because of his non-conformance with the views enforced by gay activists. The smear in fact says more about the activist than about Ron Paul. What is the most disconcerting thing here, though, is the fact that so many “conservatives” who always scream the loudest in opposing the gay agenda jumped on the bandwagon so readily - because they thought they finally found something to “stick” Ron Paul with.

The bottom line is that Paul got smeared because he consistently fails to carry out orders received from the thought-police. Not only that, he tells the thought-police - in his usual principled and polite way  - that they should not even exist.

That is his real 'crime' - and I suspect he will gladly admit to his guilt in that regard..