Bombshell: Jamie Kirchick's source revealed!

[Francisco Suarez]

One of Jamie Kirchick's sources for the New Republic hit piece has outed himself. And I'm not talking about his Reason/Cato collaborators either. This source is much more disgusting, vile, and repugnant - so repugnant that Kirchick would never dare name him publicly in any of his articles.

Kirchick's vile source is Bill White, white supremacist extraordinaire, self-appointed Fuehrer of the U.S. nazi party, and vocal Ron Paul hater.

Justin Raimondo first hinted at this possibility yesterday ( http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/hating_ron_paul_nazis_join_the_anti_paul_popular_front/ )so I decided to investigate further.

I'll get to the evidence shortly, but first I'll comment on another ironic twist to this story. Bill White hates Ron Paul with a passion. He hates Ron Paul because - get this - he thinks Ron Paul's campaign is infiltrated by "the Jews" and he cites none other than the Ludwig von Mises Institute (named after a Jewish economist and co-founded by another Jewish economist) as "proof" of this. So much for Kirchick's "Ron Paul is an anti-semite" theme.

So how do we know that Bill White is Kirchick's informant? Because Bill White himself admitted it all over the dark little toilet of the internet he inhabits - a repulsive neo-nazi website called the "Vanguard News Network" (VNN) More importantly Bill White admitted it before Kirchick's story broke. Along with a couple of "beltway libertarians" who have already been discussed, Bill White was the only person who knew this story was coming before it hit presses. That is because the New Republic called him for background on the newsletters.

Bill White posts on the VNN site under the name "ANSWP Commander" (yes, for those who know their history that means American National Socialist Worker's Party - as in Nazi - Commander). The sites this material comes from are hate-filled sewers and are not for the faint of heart, so be warned. The URLS are there if anyone needs proof, but the links are intentionally broken or redirected to google cache where it exists so we don't give this scum any traffic. It is necessary to give the sources of them though because they reveal that Kirchick has been hanging out with some very shady company and he needs to be called out on it.

Proof #1:

Bill White's post, made one week before the New Republic hit piece:

I spoke to the New Republic todayh, briefly. I don't think I quite gave them as much information as they wanted.

Source: (vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=63682&page=19)

Proof #2:

Bill White's post, made two days before the New Republic hit piece:

I am told that the New Republic has verified all my claims and is planning a huge front page story on this -- they have even asked me not to give other reporters information so they don't get "scooped".

Source: (vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=700083#post700083)

Proof #3

Bill White's statement yesterday where he admits his earlier communications with the New Republic:

Even I told the New Republic I didn't think he was a "white supremacist", just someone who takes money from "the movement".

Source: (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ron+paul"+stormfront&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
Hat tip: Justin Raimondo, http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/hating_ron_paul_nazis_join_the_anti_paul_popular_front/

CONCLUSION: Bill White knew about the New Republic story a week before it hit the web, and admitted this all over his putrid little neo-nazi website. He knew about it because the New Republic called him up for material in their coming hit piece against Ron Paul. Jamie Kirchick would never dare publicly credit somebody as disreputable as Bill White, but Bill White's own statements prove beyond a doubt that he was one of the unnamed "sources" the New Republic contacted. How else could he know that this story was about to come out before it broke? The only other people who knew about it were Kirchick's friends in the Cato/Reason crowd who got tipped off by Kirchick.

But now we have proof that the New Republic smear piece came from a very disreputable source: the head of a neo-nazi party. People like Kirchick have an agenda to smear Ron Paul. They will yield to no boundary and stoop to any new low to conduct that smear, even if it means going to the nastiest piece of bigoted anti-semitic racist gutter trash on the web to do it. Of course Kirchick will never publicly put that in his text, but he didn't need to because his neo-nazi source also has a big mouth.

 

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Break those links please. No reason to give that trash a link or to see that we are talking about them.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

Break those links please. No reason to give that trash a link or to see that we are talking about them.

I put the google cache up where I could. Unfortunately two of them have not been cached yet by google. That's why I put a warning disclaimer up.

 

[Mystile]

hahaha what a hypocrite.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

Break those links please. No reason to give that trash a link or to see that we are talking about them.

Done. The VNN links are broken now, though you can still verify them if you need proof. The only one that works is the google cache.

 

[billyjoeallen]

bump

 

[dreicher]

Thank you for doing that. Can we all chip in for an industrial-sized vat of disinfectant for you after having to sort through that filthy trash all day?

 

[Francisco Suarez]

Thank you for doing that. Can we all chip in for an industrial-sized vat of disinfectant for you after having to sort through that filthy trash all day?

LOL thanks. I felt like I should be wearing gloves as I typed on my keyboard when digging through that filth.

 

[Bradley in DC]

The more you post on this topic, the less credibility you have.

Kirchick's vile source is Bill White, white supremacist extraordinaire, self-appointed Fuehrer of the U.S. nazi party, and vocal Ron Paul hater.

Bill White was the only person who knew this story was coming before it hit presses.

CONCLUSION: Bill White knew about the New Republic story a week before it hit the web.

Dude, relax already. Your posts get worse and worse. The official campaign knew this was coming; I know this because we told them. By your line of reasoning, the campaign was behind the hit piece!

LOTS of us knew the hit piece was coming--and we told the campaign as early as December 18th. The reporter was openly bragging about it at public events here and taunting us Ron Paul supporters. Kirchick said, and reported, that he found the newsletters at a library.

I got called from a few of our local DC Meetup members on December 17th after they were taunted by Kirchick for wearing Ron Paul buttons at a Reason holiday party (I didn't attend and have never met nor communicated with Kirchick). He was bragging about the hit job he was going to do on the good doctor. Several of us notified the official campaign.

Berin, of this forum, wrote about these encounters publicly here. In fact, he was emailing with Berin about the hit piece after the party.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

The official campaign knew this was coming; I know this because we told them.

That may be so, but it doesn't excuse the fact that Kirchick was soliciting the neo-nazi movement for dirt on the story. If neo-nazis were among his sources then the story (and especially Kirchick's spin and background to the newsletters, which is presumably based on what White and potentially other neo-nazis told him) is substantially less credible than it would have otherwise been.

I've stated from the beginning that the worst thing about this newsletter story is NOT the newsletter content (which ranges from a bunch of harmless stuff taken out of context to a much smaller handful of racially insensitive and mildly offensive garbage) but the heavy spin that Kirchick put on it. Why? Because this round of newsletters was no worse in content than the newsletters that were already out there, yet it was portrayed as worse in the accompanying spin and thus perceived as worse by those who repeated the story.

Now we find out that Kirchick's spin was informed by his conversations with the head of the American Nazi party. That the campaign knew about the newsletters coming has no bearing on that fact, but Kirchick's fondness for disreputable neo-nazi sources should cast a heavy shadow over his credibility as a "reporter" on this story.

 

[Sunshinysmile]

I hate to tell you, but to some non-white people who are not RP supporters, this just looks like both sides are "filthy while flinging mud." This is not a rebuttal of the story...at least IMHO.

 

[bszoka]

I've explained my exchange with Kirchick in this blog post.

I was one of several people to alert the Campaign to the fact that this story was coming.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

I hate to tell you, but to some non-white people who are not RP supporters, this just looks like both sides are "filthy while flinging mud." This is not a rebuttal of the story...at least IMHO.

That's an unfortunate characteristic of politics in general, and as much as people claim they find it distasteful it is pretty much unavoidable in a campaign as high profile as this one. So you make due with what you have, and hope your mud sticks better than theirs.

I agree that this information does not answer the newsletters fully. There's still an issue there (though I don't think it's as bad of an issue as it has been made out to be). And while there's still time to address that issue in other ways, we need to be thinking in terms of our media game before the general public.

In today's hype-obsessed media culture the word "neo-nazi" sells, and it soils whoever it associates with. Right now there is more than enough evidence to associate Jamie Kirchick with a very disreputable neo-nazi source. What he did is comparable to an AP reporter calling up David Duke for "off the record" background information on the Jena 6 story, or the affirmative action supreme court case. If an AP reporter did that he would probably be fired, and rightly so. So even if it is mud, in this particular scenario of PUBLIC RELATIONS it is the correct mud to be flinging.

We can discuss the newsletters to our personal satisfaction on this forum, the blogs, and elsewhere. But Ron Paul has been viciously attacked by a hostile "reporter" from the New Republic. When you're attacked in politics for political reasons you don't sit back and try to analyze the minutiae scattered by the salvo to everyone's personal satisfaction. You hit back at the guy who attacked you, and you hit back hard.

Settle the other stuff behind the scenes and quietly, but in the public's mind they'll be looking for what you do to the attacker. If you do nothing, you look weak. If you do something - such as credibly tagging the guy for his use of neo-nazi scumbags as sources - you make him as much a part of the story as his initial attack.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

I've explained my exchange with Kirchick in this blog post.

I was one of several people to alert the Campaign to the fact that this story was coming.

Berin - That blog post is excellent. I submit that if you ever wanted more proof that Kirchick is the sleazy muckraking hack you describe in that post, this is it.

The guy called up the chairman of the American Nazi party while trolling for trash to pin on Ron Paul. It doesn't get any sleazier than that.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Now we find out that Kirchick's spin was informed by his conversations with the head of the American Nazi party. That the campaign knew about the newsletters coming has no bearing on that fact, but Kirchick's fondness for disreputable neo-nazi sources should cast a heavy shadow over his credibility as a "reporter" on this story.

Francisco,

How do you know Kirchick contacted the neo-Nazi? The proof in your post is that he posted about the story before it ran (and you wrongly claimed he was the only one who knew it was coming). Lots of us knew the story was coming. The official campaign knew weeks before the story broke (I was one of several who told them). What is your source that Kirchick used the neo-Nazi for a source? Krichick says he went to the library and read them all (and later made them available as PDFs). What is the benefit to the campaign or to the movement to keep this story going?

 

[Cleaner44]

This is great but the media is not interested in the truth.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

Francisco,

How do you know Kirchick contacted the neo-Nazi? The proof in your post is that he posted about the story before it ran (and you wrongly claimed he was the only one who knew it was coming). Lots of us knew the story was coming. The official campaign knew weeks before the story broke (I was one of several who told them). What is your source that Kirchick used the neo-Nazi for a source? Krichick says he went to the library and read them all (and later made them available as PDFs). What is the benefit to the campaign or to the movement to keep this story going?

Bradley - I apologize for the generalization (though I did use the caveat that some at Reason also knew about the thing before it hit), but my point is that the story was pretty much unknown outside of the D.C. libertarian circles before it hit...with one exception: Bill White.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Bill White isn't privy to what goes on in the D.C. libertarian back channels. Yet he clearly knew the story was coming before it hit, and he claims he knew directly from the New Republic itself. That proves White is telling the truth when he says Kirchick called him for material in the hit piece. And that makes Kirchick's credibility as a reporter very suspect.

As to keeping this story going, my whole take is that the cat's out of the bag on the story itself and there is very little effect in either direction of me posting additional comments on it at an internet forum. Ignoring it won't make it go away because too many people are invested in it and out for blood, Kirchick among them. What I can do here is try to offer material for the continued response, including some that discredits Kirchick both now and in the future. In politics, when you're attacked and the attacker gives every reason to believe he'll keep attacking you can't ignore him. The only thing you can do is hit back, and hit back hard.

A wise man once told me that in politics you campaign against your opponent. When the media itself becomes your opponent, attack the media. I know that defies the conventional wisdom about not picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel but I'm inclined to go with the guy who told me that because he was also elected to state and national offices about a dozen times.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

This is great but the media is not interested in the truth.

You're right - they are not. But we can cast a shadow of doubt over the media itself. Kirchick is part of the media - a very hostile and vocal part. If he's going to neo-nazis for source material on his smears, that needs to be shared and he needs to be slimed for it.

When the media becomes your opponent, hit back against the media. That's the only way.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley - I apologize for the generalization (though I did use the caveat that some at Reason also knew about the thing before it hit), but my point is that the story was pretty much unknown outside of the D.C. libertarian circles before it hit...with one exception: Bill White.

Ok, let's try to stick with the facts. We know that dozens of people (certainly in the DC libertarian circles and who knows how many others including in the official Ron Paul campaign) knew the story was coming. We know that Kirchick was very brazenly public about his coming hit piece. We know he easily emailed people about it. We don't know all of the people whom he told about his story. You know of one person (so far?) outside of DC who knew about it prior to it going public (I know there were others).

Now, if you want to say you have a theory, fine. But your stated "evidence" just ain't so.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

Ok, let's try to stick with the facts. We know that dozens of people (certainly in the DC libertarian circles and who knows how many others including in the official Ron Paul campaign) knew the story was coming. We know that Kirchick was very brazenly public about his coming hit piece. We know he easily emailed people about it. We don't know all of the people whom he told about his story. You know of one person (so far?) outside of DC who knew about it prior to it going public (I know there were others).

Now, if you want to say you have a theory, fine. But your stated "evidence" just ain't so.

Bradley - I think you are still missing the point. Bill White himself said repeatedly that he was contacted by the New Republic. He named the New Republic by name, and he intimated that the article content would be exactly what it ended up being. He also did so well before the story broke.

Use Ockham's razor here. Is there an off chance that one of the D.C. libertarian insiders who got Kirchick's pre-story emails forwarded it on to somebody else who eventually forwarded it on to Bill White, who then imagined that he talked to the New Republic himself and posted that claim it all over the Hitler message board? Yeah. I suppose there is a very off chance that could have happened.

But the probability and evidence is heavily on the side of the simpler explanation: Kirchick called up Bill White trolling for dirt, and Bill White blabbed about it on the Hitler board.

That Kirchick got some of his story background (not the newsletters themselves mind you, but the equally crucial spin and background material Kirchick used to pad them) from a well known neo-nazi is therefore a safe conclusion.