The Daily Background
| Racism in Ron Paul’s Past Writings?
by Arlen Parsa
Some bloggers have been digging around and researching Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul’s history, and it may come as a surprise to find that he’s not the person a lot of supporters on the internet thought he was. New information dug up by bloggers reveals that Congressman Paul has had ties to White Supremacist organizations and has published fringe racist rants in the past.
“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,” Paul wrote in a 1992 edition of his newsletter The Ron Paul Political Report (later renamed to The Ron Paul Survival Report).
Paul also once suggested that the vast majority of African Americans were criminals, writing “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Paul was referring to Washington DC, which is heavily populated by African Americans.
Congressman Paul also once seemed to encourage fear of African American men because of the color of their skin, saying “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.”
The Congressman also advocated treating young black males who are accused of committing crimes differently than young white males accused of the same crime. “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23,” he once wrote. “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” (emphasis added).
Virtually all scientists agree that children’s brains are not fully developed at age 13, no matter where they are raised.
In another stunning case of racism, Congressman Paul once declared “our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin.” He also talked about how “unbelievably fleet-footed” young black men are, when they rob white people.
Paul also has seemed to welcome the support of prominent White Supremacist leaders and groups. In the 1990s, Paul accepted the endorsements of Larry Pratt, an associate of the infamous White Supremacist and former KKK leader David Duke. Pratt has been featured at neo-Nazi events. Paul has also received the support of a Texas separatist group and racist anti-Martin Luther King and pro-confederacy organizations.
Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, which has responded previous requests from The Daily Background for comments on other issues was given a chance to respond to this article but did not.
Update:
Michael Krekel, a spokesperson for Congressman Paul’s campaign, has now responded to the allegations of racism in the Congressman’s writings. Krekel called the writings “unfortunate,” but said that the writings referenced above were “not written by the congressman personally.”
“It was composed by a ghostwriter, and then sent out with Dr. Paul’s name attached to it, Krekel told The Daily Background. He also said that at the time, Paul was not directly involved in politics and that he had a staffer write the column in his place. Paul “has apologized repeatedly for his error, and he has been dealing with the incident for 15 years,” Krekel added.
“While the views expressed on African Americans do not reflect Congressman Paul’s views, he understands that he is responsible for anything that goes out in his weekly column.”
I don’t know what all this to do about Ron Paul is. I personally think he looks much better in his drag get up with that magnificent blond wig. I can see from the attached pic that it must be getting ever more difficult to achieve that diva look over and over by make up alone. I always thought he was a black man in drag - ‘m I bad!?
LB
I think it’s noteworthy that this is all from the same writing, and not separate occasions as this article seems to suggest; also, it was disavowed by Dr. Paul, saying that he did not in fact write the column in question, that it was an aide who inappropriately used his newsletter to voice their own viewpoint — anecdotally, this same aide was a plant from a rival campaign.
Considering that Ron Paul has written things that contradict the offending newsletter both prior to, and since, I think it’s probably a credible defense. His only mistake, if any, was that he did not handle it with a public display of outrage.
Educate yourselves. The Wikipedia page for Ron Paul is a good start, and furthermore, it cites references.
Houston Chronicle[63] alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) which could be construed as racist, including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan, and that this could help his political opponents.[64]
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:
“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.’”[65][8]
He further stated:
“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… we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”[8]
Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, at the time they printed the denial, “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.” They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[8]
In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[66] Paul criticizes racism, saying:
“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.”[66]
Books authored
>> I personally think he looks much better in his drag get up with that magnificent blond wig. I can see from the attached pic that it must be getting ever more difficult to achieve that diva look over and over by make up alone.
You are probably thinking of Giuliani, who is the most experienced female impersonator among the presidential candidates. However, pics like http://www.newyorkslime.com/giuliani-drag.jpg make most people want to poke their own eyes out in self-defense.
>>pics like http://www.newyorkslime.com/giuliani-drag.jpg
Please, kill me.
Paul’s apology is interesting. He does not actually say that he disagreed with the ideas, just that the words were not the ones he would use, not his “language”. So he is a racist, but hides it with better words.
Even if they were his words, which they weren’t, they come across as being aware of the problems that the criminal justice and educational systems have caused on the black community. There is not hatred in those words, no racism, just opinion that is backed up by vast amounts of statistical evidence. A disproportionate number of minorities are criminalized by the criminal justice system. It has caused a lot of problems in the community and forced many young black children into adult situations at a very young age due to lack of a father figure and generations of built-up hatred towards ‘the Man’. The War on Drugs is a big part of that.
These folks accusing Dr. Paul of racism aren’t being intellectually honest.
Word, WillyPete. Paul’s so intellectually honest he won’t even kowtow to the new state religion of PC, wherein giving protected minorities any reason to feel less than super-duper about themselves is a mortal sin. Giuli is shrewd enough to use this to his advantage. He’ll probably come to the next debate in his Marlena Dietrich get-up and dare Ron to claim homosexuals lead comparably hi-risk lifestyles.
Ouch, can you imagine what the spinmasters will do with this? Should prove interesting when Dr. Paul simply states the facts. He usually wins over the intelligent with his straightforward responses to those who try to badger him. I am very encouraged to learn he did not say or write those comments, although, there does seem statistical support for some of them. I would not suggest those comments should have been made.
The comments from Ron Paul supporters on this thread prove what those of us who have known who Paul is for years already — that many of his supporters share his racist views.
These remarks:
“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.â€
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html)
actually come from Paul’s speech saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed. The law made it legal for people of color to use public accommodations on an equal basis in the South where segregation had been legal. It also guaranteed the right of non-whites to vote. If the Act were repealed, both segregation and refusal to allow non-whites the vote could be imposed again. Paul’s opposition to integration and allowing non-whites suffrage is very much in keeping with his remarks in 1992.
The remarks in the newsletter are his. His ’sort of’ recantation did not occur until he happened to be in the national spotlight years later. Someone who had not written the material or disagreed with what it said would have spoken up much sooner.
Nor does Paul’s dubious recantation in any way explain away why he ihas been involved with white supremacist groups for many years. His favorite, the Council or Conservative Citizens, has endorsed Paul, as has former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. There is no doubt in their minds that Paul is one of them. There should not be any doubt in the electorate’s mind about what Ron Paul stands for, either.
He didn’t make the remarks. You ought to change the title of this post from “Racism in Ron Paul’s Past Writings?” to “No Racism in Ron Paul’s Past Writings.” From today’s New York Times:
“In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal†and stated that “by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.†Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist†publication.
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. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ †he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.
What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.†Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do.”
[…] of his newsletter The Ron Paul Political Report (later renamed to The Ron Paul Survival Report). The Daily Background » Blog Archive » Racism in Ron Paul’s Past Writings? __________________ The Patriot’s […]
Podesta, You’re inserting a great deal of what you think Ron Paul is saying, rather than honestly looking at what he’s saying. He is discussing individual liberty.
He believes in civil rights, he believes that the Constitution should have included civil rights for blacks and women, as Jefferson implied in HIS first draft of the constitution.
He is saying that without a focus on INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, we will always be bound to labels that separate us from our INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. I have a hard time explaining this, I understand it conceptually, but to people who love the labels and boxes we are put in, it’s hard to explain.
Podesta,
How is it that repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also repeal the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution?
When Ron Paul first tried defending these comments when taken “in context” he was trying to take the high road, as he stated at the time that he took responsibility for whatever came from his staff. Later, he clarified that he did not actually write it.
The statements were inconsistent with everything he has said previously, and everything he has said since.(See links below.)
If we do take the comments in context of the times, racial profiling was a big topic of the times. Here’s another quote from that time period:
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life, than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see someone white and feel relieved.” Jesse Jackson, 1993
So, has anyone since called Jesse Jackson a racist? No, because people were smart enough to consider his comments within the context of the debate.
If you want to know where Ron Paul stands on racism, listen to him:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul192.html
[…] Racism in Ron Paul’s Past Writings? A progressive viewpoint on Ron Paul Another good Ron Paul rant (but this one isn’t from me) Is […]
[…] Photos- Ron Paul poses with notorious Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist supporters Racism in Ron Paul’s Past Writings? Ron Paul pledges to keep contribution from notorious racist leader Ron Paul panders to […]
[…] även en av Pauls talesmän Michael Krekel kommentera, längst ner. […]
[…] in the blogosphere a while ago, and I still get a good deal of hits to the post I wrote, titled Racism in Ron Paul’s Past Writings? (See the post for examples of the disgusting racism contained in his old […]