Ron Paul: Racist? Liar? Or Both? Please discuss.

This is not exactly breaking news, as you'll soon see, but rather addressing old news that is pertinent to the fitness of Ron Paul's candidacy for the office of President of the United States. Here at ATS we have a discussion that has been underway for a few days questioning the ethics and meaning of Ron Paul presidential campaign acceptance of a $500.00 donation from noted racist Don Black. During the later stages of that discussion ATS member jsobecky sourced an article which questions whether Ron Paul is a racist or sympathizer of racist agenda, ideology, and policy. The question arises out of the article "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism" which was published in a 1992 edition of Ron Paul Political Report. A newsletter that was published by Ron Paul, himself. Nine years following the publication of that article Ron Paul attempted to distance himself from the article by saying that the article was written by someone on his campaign staff at the time. Paul has said that he is not directly responsible for the article or its content but that he does bear a "moral responsibility" to some extent for what was said.

An online blog, Daily Kos, is what brings this issue to our attention today. Written by jhutson, the author states,

Among those who aspire to the White House, only Paul has informed his closest supporters that "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

That statement makes the assertion that a group of people can be identified by the color of their skin as actual terrorists and potential terrorists. It promotes fear and it forms the basis for the rest of the article featured on Daily Kos titled, Ron Paul: Black Men Are 'Actual and Potential Terrorists'. The article not only asks whether Ron Paul is a racist, but also whether Ron Paul is attempting to hide that he is racist and/or has embraced and supported racist ideology and policy in the past. Ron Paul has refused to release any of his newsletters to the media that would like to further vet this question of Paul's stance on race here in the United States.

Is Ron Paul the first to promote the idea to wage a war on terror here in the United States? A war that would single out groups of people solely based on the color of their skin?

The original source of the article published 1992 edition of Ron Paul Political Report can be found at: Google Groups. The following post in my response to jsobecky in the ATS thread mention in the first paragraph of this post.

reply to post by jsobecky


That article does more to support your argument than anything else you've said. You should have brought that article to the table to begin with.

You claim not to understand whether someone tying your shoelaces for you makes you guilty of tying your own shoelaces. I find that claim remarkable because the answer is obviously, no. Understanding that simple logic would make it possible to understand that you would not be guilty of being a criminal for accepting stolen money from a criminal for goods that you've sold to the thief. You would also understand the distinction between donating to a campaign and a campaign accepting a donation. That is to say, accepting money from a racist does not make one a racist, just as an evil person does not become a good person simply by donating to a good person's cause or campaign. All of these issues you have disputed with me, taking pride in your ability to create and sustain quarrels over dissension with your point of view. If this is all just amusement to you then it is no wonder why you do not take the time to understand simple logic -- you have no need for it. Otherwise you would create and sustain your argument on a foundation made up of more than just your opinion. Which brings me back to the article you posted.

The article you reference is the subject of a different argument than the one posed by this thread. This thread, the OP, addresses whether Ron Paul's campaign acceptance of a donation from Don Black makes Ron Paul a supporter of racist and separatist policy and agenda. However, the article that you refer in the Daily Kos to addresses whether Ron Paul is a racist because of writings he allegedly authored in a newsletter that was published by himself and his campaign party. Again, those are two distinct arguments questioning whether, one, Ron Paul is a supporter of racism, or two, a racist himself. The stronger case to be made as whether Ron Paul is a racist is made form the article you posted and not the OP. As I've already said, acceptance of a campaign donation from anybody only proves support for the candidate whose party receives the donation. It doesn't prove anything else other than that. Yet the article you've posted goes a long way towards establishing the strong possibility that Ron Paul is at least strongly prejudiced towards Black Americans. There are many reasons to support that contention. One reason is that his newsletter published what has been determined to be pure propaganda based on studies and statistics that have never existed. One more reason is that those writings support the creation of legislation that would target Black Americans as criminals simply because they are Black. Now THAT particular reason is purely racist in nature. Finally, yet another reason is that the article appeared be published under the pen of Ron Paul. Ron Paul's contention in 2001, 9 years after the fact of the article's first appearance in a 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report, was that one of his staffers wrote the article. Whether or not Ron Paul's claims are true, the question still arises, does Ron Paul agree with the content of that article?

According to the Daily Kos (sourced in your comment) which is addressing this issue of racist writings in Ron Paul's newsletter:

Either Paul was lying when he admitted to writing those words, or he was telling a belated and convenient lie when he claimed that they were ghost written by an unnamed staffer. Either way, Paul is a liar. Further, he has repeatedly refused media requests to release all of his newsletters. (Paul published the Ron Paul Political Report from 1985 to 1992, then changed the newsletter's name to the Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993.)

Ron Paul's admission, of course, comes from publishing that article under his own name. Paul's subsequent denial of writing of those words, again, comes from the fact that he credits one of his staffers with the writing of those words published in the article under Paul's name. Paul is saying that he had a ghost writer. So, clearly, a lie has been told. The question is, which lie is the truth? Regardless of which lie is the truth, the publication of the article is without question evidence of Ron Paul's support for the content of the article. This cannot be discounted or spun in a different direction.

That Ron Paul refuses to release all of his newsletters to the press further raises suspicion, and ironically goes against the pledge for open, transparent and accountable government that Ron Paul has repeatedly said he subscribes to. Apparently, Ron Paul agrees that there is a need for secrecy after all.

The publication of "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism" in Ron Paul Political Report, 1992 states:

Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows, black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

In the same issue Ron Paul wrote:

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.

Without question both statements taken together represent fear, a racist disposition, and the advocation of racist policy.

jsobecky, this is important enough that it deserves its own thread and discussion. If you hadn't been so intent on amusing yourself at being able to handle dissension, we could have addressed this article at an earlier time. From this article alone, Ron Paul does indeed have credibility problems relating to his stance on race in the United States. Never mind the issue of accepting $500 from a known racist, the issue of Ron Paul disseminating or supporting the dissemination of racist opinion and propaganda under the authorship of his own name is MUCH more important. As far as I am concerned, it is of paramount importance and it should be addressed accordingly.






Source

The link you provided to the article on the Los Angeles riots from the "Ron Paul Political Report" is very sobering. Even if it was written by a staffer, the fact that it appeared under his imprimatur makes him at least partially responsible for the content. Granted, many people were alarmed by the riots, but even allowing for the heat and emotions of the moment, it seems unquestionably racist. Very telling was the assertion that only 5% of African Americans have "sensible political opinions." In other words, they don't agree with him in large numbers. I would like to see other issues of the Ron Paul Political Report to be sure of my conclusions. But if I think the article was racist and I'm caucasian, I can imagine how African Americans and other minorities (some Latino neighborhoods joined the riots as well) might feel.

This is very disturbing.

I wasn't going to vote for the man anyway, but now, my feelings are he needs to remove himself from the race.

Those words are undeniably racist, and appear under his name...so whether he wrote them himself, or not, he knew of them and approved them.

So where do we stand now? He seems to have been reveiled as a not so closet bigot. I'd like to hear a bit more from him concerning this.

reply to post by Areal51


Well done, by the way. Nicely put together.

Very curious to see what happens next...

You might have some trouble getting replies to this.
Not because you didn't supply some research into the issue.

But because the subject line is a problem.
Guilty, guilty, or really guilty..Those are the choices you've provided.

Kinda shows your mind is made up, and you aren't really interested in all possibilities.

However, I'll pitch in with a question.

If YOU, as an ATS member accidentally left yourself logged in, and another person started posting racially tainted garbage all over the boards under your name, would it be correct to assume that YOU were a racist?

reply to post by spacedoubt

Originally posted by spacedoubt

You might have some trouble getting replies to this.
Not because you didn't supply some research into the issue.

But because the subject line is a problem.
Guilty, guilty, or really guilty..Those are the choices you've provided.

Kinda shows your mind is made up, and you aren't really interested in all possibilities.

Well, that's not uncommon with many Ron Paul threads - people have strong convictions oneway or the other.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
However, I'll pitch in with a question.

If YOU, as an ATS member accidentally left yourself logged in, and another person started posting racially tainted garbage all over the boards under your name, would it be correct to assume that YOU were a racist?

Are you equating your scenario to the fact that RP didn't actually write the article?

If so, and I were RP, I'd make all issues of my publication available for scrutiny. The fact that he has refused to make them all available is troubling and suspicious.

jsobecky

That's for sure!
Strong feelings, one way or another.
I certainly hope that we are above feelings, versus whatever the truth may be though. The truth is the important thing here. Feelings should not get in the way of that.

What about the question I posed?

Would you be a racist, if someone else posted racist remarks using your account?

reply to post by spacedoubt


It wouldn't automatically make me a racist. But a lot can be told by the intensity of my denial, imo. A nonchalant denial can be interpreted as apathy, or even silent complicity. And when one is in the public eye, running for the highest elected office in the land, one is under a responsibility to answer questions that a common person can refuse to under the guise of privacy.

Originally posted by spacedoubt

You might have some trouble getting replies to this.
Not because you didn't supply some research into the issue.

But because the subject line is a problem.
Guilty, guilty, or really guilty..Those are the choices you've provided.

Kinda shows your mind is made up, and you aren't really interested in all possibilities.

However, I'll pitch in with a question.

If YOU, as an ATS member accidentally left yourself logged in, and another person started posting racially tainted garbage all over the boards under your name, would it be correct to assume that YOU were a racist?

I didn't mean to quote your comments in full, but the reply button seems to not work on my computer. Not sure what's wrong.

Anyway, the subject line to the thread reflects questions. There's not enough space to fully write each and every question in full. For example, "Is Ron Paul a racist?" That's pretty straightforward. I didn't call him a racist, I asked the question to if he is one. The questions posed in the subject line are indeed the central issues that Ron Paul's writings provoke. All possible answers are not predictable as you make it seem to be. For your response to be correct reflection of what I said, instead of writing, "Guilty, guilty, or really guilty..", you should have wrote, "Guilty? Guilty? Or really guilty?". I'm sure you understand the difference.

What's more is that because I pose questions, you seem to have made up your mind about me. If you reread the subject line you will notice that I also said, "Please discuss." That statement alone leaves the thread open to all possible replies. I'm also quite sure that it is not unheard of for ATS members to focus their threads to topics that they are interested in discussing. As you probably know by now, I didn't title this thread, "Ron Paul is a racist. Please elaborate."

As to your final question, I would expect that if such a thing occurred that many people would come to the conclusion that I was a racist. I would certainly make a formal retraction, but an apology, while I would offer one, wouldn't have any real effect because I wouldn't be guilty of making racist commentary. An apology is not something that only goes one way. It is not merely for those who are offended. It is also an expression that represents contrition from the person offering the apology. And that's the key, a genuine apology is to be offered by the guilty party in order for it to have any value. That's why apologies that are demanded do not have any meaningful or real effect. Demanded apologies only serve to pacify. They do not rectify. And so more evidence of contrition is needed.

That brings me to my next point concerning your question. If indeed Ron Paul did not write the article that appeared under his name in a newsletter that he published, he at least authorized the article's publication. That is, he gave permission through the fact that he is or was the publisher of the newsletter. Therefore, someone with malicious intent writing under my name without my permission is not the same thing.

I think that I understand what you are trying to say, but my innocence or guilt is not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether Ron Paul is more or less than he seems to be.

NGC2736 said this in the thread covering the $500.00 donation by Don Black to Ron Paul's campaign:

Originally posted by NGC2736
I have great admiration and respect for many of you, on both sides of this issue. I respect the fact that you care enough to look at this very closely, to do as my friend palashea is doing now, and delve deeper.

In the end, it is a matter of each of us overcoming patterns instilled by those who want to control our minds and actions.

Ron Paul keeps white supremacist donation

And so if we are to overcome rigid patterns of thinking then we must demand the same of our political leaders. Scrutinize them when and where necessary. After all, it is they who we choose and elect to follow. My efforts are not to smear. My efforts are to discover. If we are to deny ignorance, then we cannot ignore, no matter how old, this piece of evidence that brings question to Ron Paul's stature and and his stance on the issue of race in the United States. His article that under discussion in this thread is a historical document. The L.A. Riots of 1992 were not trivial. To me, Ron Paul's commentary seem fit to his campaign at that time. Possibly it resonated with his constituency. And now that he's running for the candidacy of the President of the United States he's got some new issues and seems to be trying to discard the old ones that are incompatible with his newest campaign. How does he really feel? How does he really think? How well does his history back him up on all of the issues he supposedly stands for?

Three things could put this 6 feet under for Ron Paul. The first is to provide the identification of the author of the article. The second is to offer the release of his newsletters to the media. Releasing his newsletters to the media would furnish us with the information needed to determine whether the article in question was a one time event, whether similar articles were written but which appeared only rarely and under authorship other than Ron Paul. It would also provide a chance to show that Ron Paul has a history of writing content to the contrary of racist commentary and propaganda. The refusal to release the newsletters creates the impression that there is something significant to hide that would bring unwanted attention to Ron Paul's character and campaign. Finally, the third thing that would go a long way towards burying this issue is an explanation by Ron Paul as to why he would allow articles to be published under his own name that were written by people other than himself, articles that he didn't agree with. How often did this occur? What could it possibly mean?

Divide and conquer is one of the oldest and most effective strategies in the book. I don't really need to tell ATSers that. Floating and disseminating such propaganda as the article which is under discussion in this thread achieves that objective without trying. Many Ron Paul supporters are behind him because of the record of his actions in Congress. Nothing is wrong with that. But we all know that players play the game to their advantage. What needs to be shown is how Ron Paul's actions in his newsletter can be reconciled with his actions in Congress. If a politician speaks to all the right things, votes on all the right things, and signs the right pieces of paper while in office but simultaneously advances and promotes ideas and policy in another capacity that are contrary to his official actions and position, then that politician is not only a liar absent integrity, that politician should also be avoided at all costs.

Divide and rule is the current situation that we are dealing with under the current administration. Do we want assurances that we are not going to elect a repeat performance that just looks a little differently from presidencies of the past? Denying ignorance is not a convenient disposition. It does not provoke comfort. Regardless of how many choose to post a reply in this thread, my wish is that all who have ventured to read this far have delved deeply into the meaning of deny ignorance.

reply to post by Areal51

What needs to be shown is how Ron Paul's actions in his newsletter can be reconciled with his actions in Congress. If a politician speaks to all the right things, votes on all the right things, and signs the right pieces of paper while in office but simultaneously advances and promotes ideas and policy in another capacity that are contrary to his official actions and position, then that politician is not only a liar absent integrity, that politician should also be avoided at all costs.

I agree with that assessment and nothing Ron Paul has done in office advanced or promoted that which he opposes by signing the right pieces of paper and voting on the right things. His actions on the job far outweigh any opinions expressed in his newsletter rants. He has never used his power to do anything out of step with a equal and limited power government. It’s Ron Paul’s philosophy on government that will reach beyond him and into policies.

I was looking for the video where Ron Paul spoke to a mostly minority group and addressed some issues but I found a video of someone responding to these accusations instead. I liked his response and it’s relevant so I’ll post it:



He is the smart choice for anyone concerned with government oppression, racial or otherwise. I’m white, but I don’t think minorities would jump up and down at this stuff as much as people concerned with being politically correct would.

Originally posted by captainplanet
reply to post by Areal51

 

He is the smart choice for anyone concerned with government oppression, racial or otherwise. I’m white, but I don’t think minorities would jump up and down at this stuff as much as people concerned with being politically correct would.

I don't agree that this is a matter of political correctness. To me, it's a matter questioning whether Ron Paul's character is appropriate for the office of President of the United States. The speaker in the video makes excellent points, but if by chance Ron Paul is a racist and supports racist policies, then his message of freedom doesn't mean much regardless of his political record. If his work in an unofficial capacity is contrary to his official disposition, nothing will change.

Separatists advance the idea and belief that being separate is good. I do not agree. What I'm concerned about is the problem, reaction, solution equation. The idea that Ron Paul moonlights by advancing racist policy, thereby creating issues for which he can take an official stand and provide what is deemed to be an appropriate solution. Hopefully you can grasp what I'm talking about here without me going into much detail. Who wants to deny racism when the issue is always hot enough to guarantee votes?

reply to post by Areal51


He has been consistent in his stances throughout his political career, he‘s not going to transform when he becomes president. He is against the federal government regulating just about anything, let alone a specific group of people. I think it’s crazy to think that it would even be possible for something racist to make it into law today.

Hey.

Where is the original document?
the Actual newsletter?
I've been looking for an original source..Can't seem to find it.

All I have found so far are sites "wishing" this were true, so they could nail Paul on Racism. So far nothing but innuendo, regarding his authorship.

Paul himself has denied writing this, and that it wasn't even in his writing style. He took "moral responsibility" because his name was on the newsletter. Some say the staffer who wrote it was fired. That, I am not completely sure about that yet.

In the meantime here is a piece that WAS written By Dr. Paul.
Regarding racism, and how it is embraced by our own government.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal 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. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

The rest is here:
www.lewrockwell.com...


Perhaps there are some VERIFIABLE stories, quotes from Doctor Paul that might help you in your quest to prove that this good man has a racist heart.

if you really want the dirt on ron paul, watch this video:

The Shocking Truth About RON PAUL

Originally posted by captainplanet
reply to post by Areal51

 

He has been consistent in his stances throughout his political career, he‘s not going to transform when he becomes president. He is against the federal government regulating just about anything, let alone a specific group of people. I think it’s crazy to think that it would even be possible for something racist to make it into law today.

The possibility that racist policy would be passed today is the same as it was yesterday, or any other day. The probability of policy being passed tomorrow, that is, the future, is unknown.

Yes, what a politician does in official capacity is important, but so are the actions taken and issues advanced outside of official capacity. For example, it makes perfect sense that a congressman would vote for the passage of bills that would make the use of certain kinds of drugs illegal, and then in unofficial capacity engage in the trafficking and sale of illegal narcotics into the country, unbeknownst to the general public and law enforcement agencies. As far as the general public and mass media are concerned, the congressman's record reflects that the congressman is hard on crime, and so the congressman gets the votes needed to win an election. Any rumors suggesting that the congressman is a drug lord and trafficker gets squashed because of the voting record. Yet, in actuality the rumors represent the truth about the congressman.

As for Ron Paul, if he did author that article or support it being published, at least one angle is clear. The only thing that could be needed to push racist or unfairly biased policy into law is an event that could be spun to gain support for the passage of those laws. An event such as another riot where the "terrorists" are depicted in the act of their transgressions. Where the public's fear could be used for the passage of bills and the gaining of votes.

IF Ron Paul is a racist or neo-Nazi sympathizer it is quite possible that it's a well known fact among racist organizations and supporters. Votes are needed to gain political office as any organization would understand. They would understand the need for a candidate to express a wide variety of views and support a wide variety of issues. It doesn't need to be shown that a candidate supports racist policy in an official capacity. In fact, as far as official governmental roles are concerned, it's better that the candidate express views of equality for all people. It's even better if the candidate's record can interpreted as evidence of the truth of those views. But the candidate could still be a racist and support policies that are harder to interpret among the lines of race but which in fact do target certain groups of people in a way that works against those groups of people. Sustaining collateral damage might be a part of the equation. For example, under such policy, for the greater good some Whites will suffer so that most Blacks will suffer.

These are examples of how a racist could get into office and affect change that would gradually reflect a racist agenda, and also how a politician can play both sides of the fence for political and monetary gain.

You also spoke about Ron Paul's ability to change, that's something that I also question because if he's being billed as a progressive candidate, then he should be capable of change. I referred to that in a previous post where I quoted NGC2736.

reply to post by spacedoubt


I'd like to see the original sources, too. Because Ron Paul refuses to release the newsletters to the press in response to whether this article is true or not is what further raises suspicion. The Google Groups link I posted in the OP has not been disputed by Ron Paul as having never been published by him. That link is the full article and not just quotes in another article supporting views by another author.

Another point is that I'm not trying to prove that Ron Paul is a racist, I'm just questioning whether he is a racist. It's up to Ron Paul to prove whether he is a racist or not. He published and article in his newsletter that was credited to his authorship. He should just release copies of his newsletters to be done with this issue. He shouldn't have anything to hide if he is a good man, should he? This solution is so obvious that one has to wonder why it hasn't been used. By refusing to release the newsletters it's obvious that copies still exist.

reply to post by spacedoubt


I agree with everything he said in that article. However, the the article is rather black and white. It doesn't address any complex issues. How does a country that once institutionalized slavery recompense those it once enslaved? It's not so much whether bigoted southerners would still oppress minorities, it's the fact that there are people who are classified as minorities in the minds of the majority. Did southern bigots exemplify a change of heart when slavery was made illegal? Laws had to be passed that gave slaves and their offspring citizenship. There was also what was called Reconstruction which failed. See 40 acres and a mule. Anyway, my point is that Black Americans are a unique group of people in the United States because of the historical institutionalization of slavery and racism in the United States. Because laws were passed that allowed it, laws had to be passed to override those laws, and the laws had to be effective enough to aid in undoing the damaged caused by the effects of those laws.

Originally posted by m3rlz
if you really want the dirt on ron paul, watch this video:

The Shocking Truth About RON PAUL

I just watched it. It presented a list of things that Ron Paul has never done. Now if only his campaign could lay to rest the issue of this thread. Maybe Ron Paul has only recently come to his senses about issues of race, and so his old views and commentary no longer applies. Perhaps that's so. Perhaps he really did not write that article or has shown support for its content. I just would like to be sure of that.