Sunday, September 23, 2007

Ron Paul and Racism - CNN/YouTube Republican Debate Question



This question for the CNN/YouTube Republican Debates is based on an article I found in the Houston Chronicle and dated May 23, 1996. In the article, which I present below and has this link: Houston Chroncle Ron Paul Article .

9:16 PM 5/22/1996
Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent
GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime
By ALAN BERNSTEIN

Copyright 1996 Houston Chronicle Political Writer
Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Selected writings by Paul were distributed Wednesday by the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris.

Morris said many of Paul's views are "out there on the fringe" and that his commentaries will be judged by voters in the November general elections.

Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare.

Morris and Paul are seeking the 14th Congressional District seat held by Greg Laughlin of West Columbia. Laughlin lost the Republican primary to Paul, a former congressman and the Libertarian Party's 1988 presidential candidate.

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government's U.S. lobbying efforts and reported allegations that President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimate children.

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation "would explain certain mysteries" about the president's scratchy voice and insomnia.

"None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting," he said.

------------------------

Someone wrote that his statements were "true." Well, that's not so at all. The studies Paul reffers to are unidentified and anyone believing this is looking for some "emprirical" reason to hold a racist viewpoint. Racism is a mental illness that must be treated and eliminated. Congressman Paul must deal with this question of racism because it's based on material produced by him and his campaign.

Moreover, Paul has White Supremacist David Duke as a supporter and gives interviews to the John Birch Society. Yikes.

9 comments:

  1. If you actually did some research you would find out your question is moot. Ron Paul already explained what was written in that newsletter. A ghostwriter wrote the majority of the newsletter and he was promptly fired after these statements. Ron Paul condemned them and made it clear he was sorry he hadn't reviewed the newsletter more carefully.

    Instead of making yourself look silly, why don't you do some actual research next time instead of blatantly ignoring the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Ron Paul condemned them and made it clear he was sorry he hadn't reviewed the newsletter more carefully." --- WHAT?

    Do you realize what you just wrote? Huh? Do you? Ok. Let's take this from the top. First, I did do research, but what I could not conclude was how this wound up in the campaign material totally unchecked.

    I've written campaign material -- the stuff gets vetted quickly. Congressman Paul -- or anyone else -- doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to read or write campaign material.

    This is out there online and it's with great sadness that I saw it. I hope to get an answer and so submitted the question. I like Ron Paul, but I'm sick to death of reading Black stereotypes, I really am.

    This must be properly vetted in public.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:36 PM

    Zennie,

    Ron's not a racist. I can tell you that with certainty. I know people who have worked for his Congressional office and who have known him for a long time, and he is definitely not a racist. I have asked these people specifically about these comments, because I was very concerned when I first read them (even as someone who became a fan of Ron's as a 15 year old), and they all confirmed that they were ghost-written. (I will not give the name of the person who wrote them, out of respect for the requests of the people from whom I have gotten this information. Unfortunately, this ghostwriter is a long-time friend of Ron's, and while Ron was very unhappy about this, he did not out the person's name out of respect for this person as his friend.)

    If you read through his writings throughout his career, you will see that these definitely do not concord with the views he has expressed on racism, which have been strongly anti-racism. Here's an excerpt from his book "Freedom Under Siege" written in 1987, 5 years before that newsletter was published:

    "There are times when it seems like we get our system of values from television productions. Professional wrestling is one of the few programs which started on TV in the late 1940s and now claims more viewers than ever. There are no rules, and it is associated with contrived (but unreal) violence: mockery of the referee, racism, absence of sportsmanship, yelling, screaming, and hatred. Reasonable rules of decency are totally ignored. The shows get worse every year; belts, chains, and cages are now part of the acts. Twenty wrestlers are put into a ring without a referee and a free-for-all erupts -- the more violent, the more the crowd cheers the ridiculous charade."

    Here are more excerpts from a recent article he wrote after Imusgate:

    "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."

    "Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us."

    http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm

    Hardly the words of a racist, or someone who views racism as acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. I think this is incredibly silly matter to bring up in a debate. Debates are for debating - not apologizing. While I understand where you're coming from, Ron's already addressed the issue. If you're not satisfied, don't vote for him but to pretend like he never addressed the issue is preposterous.

    2. Here is what he had to say on the matter
    http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205

    From an interview with Texas Monthly:

    -------------------------

    "In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

    In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

    When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

    His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

    My thoughts:
    Even if Ron does sypathize with what the ghost-writer wrote, this statement is not racist but is pointing out how ludicrous the "justice" system is in DC and how it inordinately effects blacks negatively.

    "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

    and 3. If that still doesn't satisfy you, read his article on racism and law.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Again, I believe the question must be asked in a public forum. Plus, it seems none other than David Duke has taken a liking to Ron Paul.

    Plus, The Heritage Front -- "Canada's Largest White Civil Rights Resource Center" -- has Ron Paul's Newsletter listed as a resource.

    Why? And why does Congressman Paul not make statements denouncing the support of these terrorist groups?

    ReplyDelete

  6. Again, I believe the question must be asked in a public forum. Plus, it seems none other than David Duke has taken a liking to Ron Paul.


    I would guess that if you looked at the supporters of each candidate, you would find some crazies. David Duke is scum, but maybe he's like a stopped clock -- right twice a day.

    As for Ron Paul and Racism, Ron Paul is an individualist, as am I. That is incompatible with racism, because it is a philosophy entirely based with dealing with individual human beings. Not groups, not nations, not classes, not races, but individual, living, breathing human beings.

    The statements in question, by the way, were not in campaign material, but in a newsletter which was published for a decade, and had comments of this nature exactly once in that decade. It seems unlikely to me that the real Ron Paul was on display in exactly one of about 520 publications. It seems more likely that an irresponsible staff member or saboteur was on display in exactly one of 520 publications.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I want to hear Congressman Paul on this matter, not guessing at what happened.

    I've worked for several politicians and none of them would stand for being supported by a White Supremacist -- that's terrible politics for a presidential candidate. A congressperson can get away with that, but not a presidential candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ron Paul already stated this was not written by him. You realize the GOP is trying everything in their power to make this guy look bad, and he is as squeaky clean as they come. Ron Paul is simply the victim of election rigging, drive by and hit pieces by the media, and libel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you watch the Ron @ Google candidates forum, he clearly explains his thinking on collectivism and racism.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

    This is the wrong guy to be going after, try asking Guiliani about Abner Louima.

    ReplyDelete