Is Ron Paul really a racist?

[SAVEamerica]

Some people on various sites have been saying that Ron Paul is a racist. I think it's important to talk about this now so we can deal with it later on (remember the dean scream?). Here are some of the things they cite when they say these things.


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.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

Also these
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5

[JoshLowry]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=301

It was discussed there.

He was quoted as saying that he did not say those things. It was a writer for his newsletter that wrote them while he was out campaigning. He is definitely not a racist.

[SAVEamerica]

Ok sorry, feel free to close this if you want.

[thuja]

all these should be read in their context. Then, if questions, ask him. He is not a racist. Someone is trying to lower his votes,but no one here is so easiliy mislead.

[ThePieSwindler]

Wow, the people on the daily Kos are pretty radical leftists. They consider everyone against their positions "piles of shit" (to quote one Mia Dolan from that community). They also label all republicans as racist. Cavalier, indeed. I would take anything i read from that site written about anyone who is not a radical leftist with a large grain of salt.

Based on pretty much all of his other writings and views, he is obviously not a racist - but if his opposition gets a hold of this info, certainly he will be labelled as one. Is that fair? No. But Paul is have to have some very clear, concise, and well thought out answers to these questions. I'm sure he will.

[billv]

He'd probably be labeled as a racist anyway, probably from both sides this time, since it's such a common smear technique. I am very, very curious of the context of those quotes. I'm reading the original article, so far so good and seemingly true, not racist.

Here's a link to the original article. I'm saving it to my hard drive just in case it "disappears".

[Gee]

Just point out that a belief in individual liberty is fundementally incompatible with any -ism.

[jimmyjamsslo]

no hyperlink detected...

[billv]

Government and Racism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html) by Ron Paul

[ButchHowdy]

Like the word 'semitic', most people don't know the meaning of the word 'racist', which is to hold one race as SUPERIOR over another.

As to the comments, which ones in fact are NOT true?

[kylejack]

Like the word 'semitic', most people don't know the meaning of the word 'racist', which is to hold one race as SUPERIOR over another.

As to the comments, which ones in fact are NOT true?

Uh, NO. Let's not go down that road.

[TheDuke]

Ofcourse Ron Paul is not a racist, he's a libertarian... he knows what our country's economy would look like without black/yellow/brown/whatever labor. And definatly without Jewish financial backing.

If you follow the rules of logic, he can't be a racist or anti-semetic.

[kylejack]

Ofcourse Ron Paul is not a racist, he's a libertarian... he knows what our country's economy would look like without black/yellow/brown/whatever labor. And definatly without Jewish financial backing.

If you follow the rules of logic, he can't be a racist or anti-semetic.

Oh God, what is going on in this forum??

[TheDuke]

Oh God, what is going on in this forum??


What?

[kylejack]

What?

You imply that Ron Paul is not racist because he values brown/yellow labor and Jewish money. This is ridiculous. Ron Paul is not racist because he believes racism is a form of collectivism, and that all people should be treated equally regardless of their sex, race, or religion, not because he wants to exploit brown labor and Jewish money.

[jon_perez]

Once again, you have to admire at how articulate and sensible Ron Paul's views on "race relations" are:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

It is not the usual anti-this-minority or pro-that-minority gabbing. He panders to neither the right nor left on this matter, but holds what I consider to be a very mature, enlightened viewpoint.

"the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way."

"Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."

Having discourse that centers too heavily around race/ethnicity actually contributes to the problem at times. To hear Paul say it, federal government policy should concern itself with "assuring liberty for all" rather than trying to micro-manage society with programs tailored for individual communities. This reflects a belief in the ability of all kinds of people to rise up to the challenges of life themselves as long as they are given freedom.

I myself don't necessarily believe that "socialist-style" policies are inherently wrong (people can sometimes be so reactionary depending on the mood of the times), and America could certainly afford it (certainly in the past) and there were/are some good justifications for those, but perhaps the pendulum has now swung too much in this direction and it is time to rethink policies and introduce a breath of fresh air.

After many decades of social policies like affirmative action, it is reasonable to expect that the communities of those benefited by such programs should have now grown up and are capable of - or should be expected to - stand up for themselves. Democrats and liberals like to make a virtue out of being "color-blind", so why don't they go for a government that is so???

[jon_perez]

How can one accuse of Paul of being prejudiced against blacks when in his essay at

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

he writes, "The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves". Would someone who harbors prejudice describe the action [for what it was] in such a matter-of-fact way?

[4Horsemen]

Gee, what will they come up with next? I can see it now on 60 minutes; A nurse that claims she had a sexual relationship with RP 15 years ago. She will say something like "I first met him at a Neo-Nazi skinhead rally", and she was swept off her feet by his "down with Israel speech". There's no telling what these slim balls will come up with. :cool:

[jon_perez]

^ Don't be giving them ideas...! :D

[RonPaul4President]

Government and Racism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html) by Ron Paul

Thanks for that link. This thread is another lame attempt to smear Ron Paul. If you are a true Ron Paul supporter you would not bring implied and fabricated dirt on him into these forums.

Stating a FACT or experience about someone or something that involves race is not racist. The majority of Americans do not think like Al Sharpton and his mobster wannabe opportunists.

Don't confuse "mainstream" with "mainstream media".

[JoshLowry]

Thanks for that link. This thread is another lame attempt to smear Ron Paul. If you are a true Ron Paul supporter you would not bring implied and fabricated dirt on him into these forums.

Stating a FACT or experience about someone or something that involves race is not racist. The majority of Americans do not think like Al Sharpton and his mobster wannabe opportunists.

Don't confuse "mainstream" with "mainstream media".


Actually it's good to have these threads to clear things up.

[aravoth]

Ron Paul believes in freedom and individual liberty, for all people. Skin color doesn't have anything to do with liberty.

[Hancock1776]

Is Ron Paul a racist?

No.

This appears to be the one and only thing those against Ron Paul are able to dig up, and it has been thoroughly responded to and dismissed.

It was not written by Ron Paul, and as I understand it, the one who wrote those things was fired.

And it was 20-30 years ago. Enough.

[RonPaulIsGood]

I continue hearing ad hominem attacks by Democrats.
Democrats say that the free market is social Darwinism. (economic ignorance)
Ron Paul is supported by white nationalists. (Obama and Hillary are endorsed by Fidel Castro)
Ron Paul is supported by David Duke.
Some Democrats think that Ron Paul's stance on "individual, not race" is racist.
Ron Paul doesn't support affirmative action. (but why it's not repealed?)
He doesn't support birthright citizenship.
Ron Paul doesn't support Darfur intervention.
His free market "ideology" is punishing poor black people.
They say that he does not restrict hate speech, such as Don Imus' racist remarks.
They say that he does not ban cross burning. (but what Democrat will?)

These attacks can be easily refuted, but most of the Democrats still find his stances offensive, unless a very long explanation is written (but they don't have the time and are not interested to read an explanation from a stranger (which is another ad hominem reason)).

[specsaregood]

Somebody posted this link yesterday.
Recent NH poll where Ron Paul gets 22% of the black vote. Leading all other Republicans.
http://www.insideradvantagegeorgia.com/POLL_NH.pdf

[RonPaulIsGood]

No he isn't.

[Shii]

Some Democrats think that Ron Paul's stance on "individual, not race" is racist.
If we continue to focus on race rather than individuals there will be no way out of racism. The Democrats may try to lift up all blacks, but that means that if their policies are bad, it will HARM all blacks. For example, if affirmative action makes one black student lazier, that reflects badly on everyone with his skin color because of the way that system works. But if affirmative action were more subjective, nobody would be able to make such broad statements. Surely, the applause Ron Paul got at the minority forum shows that some people are tired of being treated as an automatic member of a "downtrodden race".

I think if we demonstrate how Ron Paul is proposing an alternative to the Democratic system, we will get people to respect him more, even if they won't vote for him.

[RonPaulIsGood]

The free market is the perfect solution to solve the unequal pay.

[OReich]

Okay, look, I'm not gonna sit here and paint all my views in such a way as to simply praise Ron Paul. We don't live in a perfect world with perfectly rational people. As a human being who has talked to many other human beings, I'm perfectly aware that racism and sexism persists in many corners of society. That being said, the only racism government can solve is the racism it causes through its own policies, and thus Ron Paul has the best racial policies a politican can have: NO RACIAL POLICIES.

But I'm not gonna sit here and pretend there isn't racism/sexism in society, that's just BS.

[OReich]

In case that wasn't completely clear, I follow the free market arguments involving race and economics.

[rockwell]

I don't believe it for a second, but I guess my question is, what does it matter?

What ever happened to the idea that people are allowed to believe whatever they like in America? How is it that we have allowed ourselves ot be cornered into recanting ideas or concepts whenever someone comes along and pronounces us wrong about any topic?

It simply isn't a matter for discussion anymore than a person's sexuality, means of earning a living, reading choices, associations with friends or family.

We need to find a way to snap out of this knee jerk reaction to certain trigger words or terms- racist being a great example- that people are so mortally fearful of whenever the accusation is cast about.

And on a side note, equal protection extends to everyone, it doesn't matter what their opinions are. I cannot wait for Congressman Paul to be inaugurated on Jan 20th, 2009 so we can get our private lives back.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

he isn't... that claim was dismissed years ago... the actual GOP candidate that is a racist though is Rudy Giulaini

[RonPaulIsGood]

he isn't... that claim was dismissed years ago... the actual GOP candidate that is a racist though is Rudy Giulaini

Yes but most blacks still vote for Rudy because he was a strong leader in 9/11 and pro choice.

[Corydoras]

Hi, Rockwell, welcome to the forums.
What an interesting thread to choose for your first post.

[steph3n]

Hi, Rockwell, welcome to the forums.
What an interesting thread to choose for your first post.

no clue what rockwell that is :)

it may be the water well in the backyard

[rockwell]

Hi, Rockwell, welcome to the forums.
What an interesting thread to choose for your first post.

Thanks for the welcome.

I just happen to respect people's right to their own opinions and having supported RP for going on seven years now because of his stance on personal liberty, I found the typical knee jerk reaction that most people have- even RP folks- worth addressing when baited with something "taboo".

If it doesn't matter if you're a muslim or a gay, a piano player or Benrikian, it would stand to reason that it shouldn't matter what your opinions are about race either. And since Dr Paul can't exactly chose who supports him, the best way to deflect these criticisms is to stop reacting defensively and defend EVERYONE'S rights to their own opinions. You know this will only get worse, it's better to develop intelligent and well-reasoned responses than to panic and go into denial and recanting- it doesn't work anyway.

We either stand and fight for the primacy of individual rights or we capiltulate to popular opinion- which is unerringly horrendous time and time again, and which always leads to totalitarianism when the wrong people grab the reins.

[jmdrake]

Yes but most blacks still vote for Rudy because he was a strong leader in 9/11 and pro choice.

That's simply not true. Ron Paul polls better among blacks than ANY other republican candidate!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=28323&highlight=Poll+blacks

It's time to squelch the "is Ron Paul racist" argument!

Regards,

John M. Drake

[RonPaulIsGood]

But I'm not gonna sit here and pretend there isn't racism/sexism in society, that's just BS.

OF COURSE there is racism, but it is economically infeasible

[Corydoras]

I've posted the below word for word, so I may as well repeat it here:
* * *
He addresses it in this article previewed here.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7
But I've never wanted to pay the $30 for it. Anyone wanna pony up?

What I've seen quoted elsewhere supposedly from this article is:

'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.'
* * *

[Paul4Prez]

This issue seems to be resurfacing a lot lately, now that the Nov. 5th money bomb has tipped everyone off to the fact that Ron Paul is a top tier contender.

Here's what Ron Paul himself said about it, in a web interview:


In 1992, I was back in medicine full time, but lent my name to a foundation that published large volumes of material. A staffer wrote some things under my name that I did not approve. I have taken responsibility for these comments and apologized. If you look at my 30-year record and my numerous writings on the subject of race, I think anyone will clearly see that those comments do not reflect my beliefs.

Here's the link:

http://www.teamliberty.net/id447.html

[Paul4Prez]

Here's what the New York Times said about the issue in July of 2007:


Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.

Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?fta=y