In response to David, who wrote to remind me that William F Buckley once said:
"The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”
Yes, he wrote that in the National Review in August 1957. It was a horrible thing to say. Such thoughts were disgusting and, unfortunately, quite pervasive in the day. The following also appeared in the magasine:
"In the Deep South the Negroes are retarded. Any effort to ignore the fact is sentimentalism or demagoguery. In the Deep South the essential relationship is organic, and the attempt to hand over to the Negro the raw political power with which to alter it is hardly a solution."
- National Review, March 1960
Buckley also said:
"Some of my instincts are reprehensible."
So, yes, some of his instincts were reprehensible. So were some of his statements; however, during the 1950s, Buckley had worked to remove anti-Semitism from the conservative movement and barred holders of those views from working for National Review.
In 1962, Buckley denounced Robert W. Welch, Jr., and the John Birch Society, in National Review, as "far removed from common sense" and urged the GOP to purge itself of Welch's influence.
In the late 1960s, Buckley disagreed strenuously with segregationist George Wallace, who ran in Democratic primaries (1964 and 1972) and made an independent run for president in 1968.
Buckley later said it was a mistake for National Review to have opposed the civil rights legislation of 1964–65. He also grew to admire Martin Luther King, Jr.. Shall we review Dr Paul's newsletters on the subject of MLK? Buckley supported the creation of a national holiday for MLK. Shall we review what Dr Paul's newsletter said about the MLK holiday even though the good doctor voted for to make his birthday a Federal holiday in 1979? Is he a closet racist? Did he allow others to write such vile garbage in a cynical ploy to reap campaign dough? Is he incapable of running a business enterprise of less than 10 people, but somehow capable of running the United States government with over 2 million employees?
The bottomline is on the Buckley & National Review issue is this:
Buckley is dead. He ran for Mayor of New York in 1965. He lost. He is a non-issue. He is not running for President of the United States of America.
Whatever was or wasn't published in the National Review in the last 5 and a half decades is irrelevant as it pertains to what was written in Dr Paul's various newsletters. Again, no one at the National Review is running for President of the United States of America.
So, David, we are down to a quote from William F Buckley in 1957, who is dead, and newsletters bearing the name of a candidate running for the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America in 2012 dated during what time period?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Nice try though.