It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul '90s newsletter rant against blacks, gays

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Ron Paul '90s newsletter rant against blacks, gays


edition.cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.freerepublic.com
www.associatedcontent.com




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I don't believe Ron Paul would write any of the supposed offensive articles that CNN seem to be leaning towards. I'm an Australian but I have been keeping a close eye on Ron Paul's developments. This is an attempt to discourage potential voters from voting for RP thus, I think, decreases the chance of fraud claims. Plus, this is an opportunity for the MSM to pile on the 'buzz' that Ron Paul himself and his supporters are claimed to be (to name a few) white supremacists and anti-Semites.

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
"said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst." BUSH ADMIN TILL THE END!!! Did you catch that David Gergen had something to say about this one. Ron Paul is not even a front runner and they are still so scared of him. Do they believe he actually has a chance to win? I'm definitely voting for Ron Paul!!! Wonder what will happen when the NEO-CONS plans fail. I bet Ron Paul (if he won) would not be in office long....



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Are you surprised?

He openly criticised the Civil Rights Act, that's when I lost all interest in Paul.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
They are all going to deny Ron Paul's influence and will act accordingly, by making accusations and possibly blackmailing him. Whatever it takes they'll try to bring RP down.
I've only heard of Ron Paul since October 2007 and been researching but I don't know a lot about him as much as most of the supporters, but I do support him a lot. Actually there are quite a few RP supporters here in Australia.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Ron Paul's criticism of the 1964 civil rights act wasn't racially based, but politically and constitutionally. And in his criticism, he makes some good points. One of the favorite arguments made by modern day racists is against affirmative action and the hiring of less qualified blacks for jobs. Although it certainly allowed black people to have an opportunity that they would not have otherwise had and got rid of those stupid "Blacks need not apply" signs, it just gave jerks a reason to hate black people more.

I have to question though, would we be where we are today if otherwise racist people weren't forced to work with black people. The time spent together must have had a significant positive effect on race relations, certainly in learning that the fear brought on by stereotypes in most cases was unwarranted.

However, back to RP, he's a constitutionalist, and will always side with the founding fathers. I don't think it makes him racist, maybe just a little less concerned with social issues than he is with insuring the US doesn't turn into something so far removed from the original configuration that it's no longer recognizable.

These days, we might want to think about going back to square one (sans slavery, discriminatory voting/civil rights, etc.)



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Are you surprised?

He openly criticised the Civil Rights Act, that's when I lost all interest in Paul.


it was only a matter of time before this one came up. So what? He criticized it. Let's see why:

www.lewrockwell.com...

The Trouble with Forced Integration by Ron Paul





Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.


Sounds like his same criticism for just about anything they pass. Glad to see he's been fighting this crap for over 30 years, on record.



In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.


Sounds like a racist to me!

I wonder how the other racists of the day voted...



Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No.


oh.


I think that slandering Ron Paul is a unique concept. Ron Paul supporters are not the typical voters that can be swayed, because they are so caught between candidates, that any little smudge will change their mind.

Ron Paul supporters see decades of the man setting examples, and practicing what he preaches. Can that be said for even one of the other candidates?

These hits on Ron Paul are not going to be as effective as they would be against any other candidate, that is relying on good PR and TV time for support. Ron Paul relies on his record, and his consistency.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by scientist]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   
While some the comments are questionably racist, the comment that "Blacks quite rioting only to pick up their welfare checks" was way over the line. What can you say? The newsletter has Ron Paul's name at the top. Those are statements he condones.





posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Ron Paul believes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. He says the only way the Federal Government could ensure an employer does not violate the civil rights act is for the employer to hire by racial quotas to match the business work force's racial composition and the judge's defined body of potential employees. Ron believes these quotas do not advanced a color-blind society, but rather encouraged racial balkanization and racial strife.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


dude, that was one of the biggest hit pieces I have seen in years. It starts out "Ron Paul isn't considered a presidential frontrunner..."

Then they bring out David Gergen? Come ON.


I'm actually glad that this is the biggest thing they've found yet. What a joke



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
since we're outing racist comments by people linked to candidates...

"Rudy Campaign Official: Only Rudy Can Defeat the Muslims"



"McCain calling Asians 'Gooks' "

seattlepi.nwsource.com...



On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word "gook" is offensive and alarming.


I bet we can dig some really good stuff up on the other candidates if we try hard enough.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
plus, there's another racist hit piece on Ron Paul by The New Republic here:

pajamasmedia.com...



Racist Pull Quotes:

“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”

“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”

“The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.”

“The criminals who terrorize our cities—in riots and on every non-riot day—are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to “fight the power,” and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against ‘The Man.’ And ‘The Woman.’’”

“My friend waved to the tiny [African-American] child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): “I hate you, white honkey.” And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way?” [As a matter of fact, Paul has appeared on a radio program called “The Political Cesspool,” which has featured the neo-Nazi twin pop stars Prussian Blue. –ed.]

“But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology.”

“Korean-Americans, hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive people in America (the reason for black hatred).”

“The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism.”

“We must not kowtow to the street hoodlums and their sanctimonious leaders.”

“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots.”

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.”

“Blacks have ‘civil rights,’ 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 scholarships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.”


posting since it seems extremely relevant.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Yes it;s starting to get to crunch time,now wait and see the dirty laundry that will be comming up,I'm sure this is tip of the iceberg,and BTW I'm voting for Ron Paul regardless



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Wow...

I'd like to recant my previous statement defending Mr. Paul. # him. He's on his own.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
He's done, cashed in, kaput, finished, through, but then he always was.
WTF is the meaning of Australian Ron Paul supporters? You can't vote and it is illegal for foreign money to influence an election so you can't even give him money. Is this the next scandle? Ron Paul collects money from all over the world now???
He is not electable.
He knew this was in his past yet he still ran. The powers that be knew it also and they allowed him to run. This conspiracy can only mean one thing, that he was running for a purpose. To gather all the fringe fruits in one basket as they are the ones likely to stir up trouble during the election, calling for recounts at the drop of a dime. Nobody wants them in their camp. This recent exposure of some of his past was just to remind him of his place and forwarn any voter blocks of sensible people from joining him by showing how unelectable he is.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


Australian Ron Paul supporters, does not mean supporting him financially. Supporting him, by agreeing, just the same way that many voters come to a conclusion when electing their preferred candidate. But we can't influence the outcome. Some Australians agree with him because he proposes changes that apparently threatens the way the powers that be function in the US.

I'm sure that if someone puts enough effort mining for major flaws in many of the candidates they will come up with something negative equal, or bigger than what has been put forth against Ron Paul.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Moegli]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Moegli
 


Maybe, but that level or racism certainly impacts such a large percentage of the US population that I can't see him being able to make decisions for the good of the country objectively.

Such blanket statements about black people, Jews and homosexuals shows a complete lack of understanding and empathy for a large portion of what would be his constituency. If he can't at least empathize with people who are different from him, how could he ever hope to manage any decent foreign or domestic policies?

Edit to add:

I suppose it's a bit different in Australia. I know that for the vast majority of Australia's history Non-white immigration into the country was essentially banned, leaving only the indigenous people as the minority. And I've read what many Australians think of Aboriginals from this board alone. In the US I believe the majority of people are much more accepting of ethnic minorities.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Ok I agree that Ron Paul should denounce anything that was written in the ron paul report by other people. He should stand up and say that he was wrong for not making sure that he read what was said in the newsletter. I cant take these quotes as the gospel yet, I am sure they are hugely taken out of context. It is a weak smear campaign going after him by association, his record speaks for itself. The majority of his supporters are not racists, we are constitutionalists demanding change in this country. Sure there are some racists that support him also, but the majority are not racist, and I do not believe Dr. Paul is a racist. He can come out and say that he doesnt hold the same beliefs as racists, but being a champion of freedom he cant say that people that are racist should be denounced specifically for their beliefs. Right or wrong, they are entitled to believe what they wish, and if he chastised them for that imo he would be a hypocrite.

Racism is an ugly thing, to hate based on skin color is ridiculous it is a problem on both sides black and white. Several others have stated why he was against the civil rights act, and they are spot on. Affirmative action is the most racist BS that I have ever seen in my life, all it does is fuel more hatred. To have to hire someone based on the color of their skin instead of their qualifications is ridiculous. Ron Paul for the time being has my support, I am not going to led around by the short hairs and be swayed by smear attempts such as this.

I do think it may be a long shot for him to win, however this has spoken volumes about the fact people in this country want change. If that is all this revolution does, well that is a huge step in the right direction.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


The way I see it, his only concern is about correction. Correcting the systems that govern your country. His judgments is indeed a big smack on himself regarding his many potential voting constituents.

I'm not defending his judgments whatsoever no no no no. I'm half African
. I'm only concerned about the state of your country. The other candidates just don't show any promise IMO.

Edit: Just to point out, he said himself he has to watch the papers that has his name on it. He didn't realize its content and if you read my post earlier about his opinion regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you can see his stance on racial harmony.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Moegli]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Such blanket statements about black people, Jews and homosexuals shows a complete lack of understanding and empathy for a large portion of what would be his constituency. If he can't at least empathize with people who are different from him, how could he ever hope to manage any decent foreign or domestic policies?


Oh please... don't tell me you actually bought into the hit piece? Have you even listened to Ron's side yet? Yes, it had his name on the paper -- thats it. He didn't write it, he doesn't know who who did. At the time it was published he wasn't even into politics, he had gone back to his medical profession and mostly forgotton/ignored the newsletters. Heck, it doesn't even sound one bit like him.

I'd hope you aren't that gullible and atleast look into the defense that Ron Paul had to offer. He certainly does not condone the racist material published in the newsletter 20 years ago.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join