Ron Paul's racism

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 7:05 AM GMT
    Adapted from:
    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

    For years, Ron Paul published a series of newsletters that dispensed political news and investment advice, but also routinely indulged in bigotry. Here's a selection of some especially inflammatory passages, with links [see original article] to scanned images of the original documents in which they appeared.

    “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided. [1992]”

    The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.

    December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

    October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,”and “Lazyopolis ” would be better alternatives—and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

    A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.

    The January 1993 issue of the Survival Report worries about America’s “disappearing white majority.”

    The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems,” and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter—presumably Paul—writes, “My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty.”

    * * *

    Ron Paul has also stated that he would NOT have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jan 29, 2012 7:13 AM GMT
    A few threads on this topic already.

    He was not responsible for all in the newsletter.


    Ironic more attention on Dr Paul, when Obama's church connections went without much mention ( Rev Wright)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 7:25 AM GMT
    musclmed> He was not responsible for all in the newsletter.

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

    Paul’s newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978.

    ...with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

    But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

    ...Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 7:27 AM GMT
    See also:

    Can you identify the religious right candidate speaking AGAINST "a rigid separation between church and state"?
    Yup, it's RON PAUL!

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2114922

    Ron Paul's history of anti-gay slurs
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2147443


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 8:26 AM GMT
    musclmed saidA few threads on this topic already.

    He was not responsible for all in the newsletter.


    Ironic more attention on Dr Paul, when Obama's church connections went without much mention ( Rev Wright)


    That's horse shit! Jeremiah Wright was vilified, and is still brought up today (by you and other Republicans). The fact that you and I both know who he is should tell you something.

    Do I know Ron Paul's pastor without googling it? Do I know George W. Bush's pastor without googling it? I know the story about George W. being in church with his mother and being "called" to be president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 10:50 AM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidSee also:

    Can you identify the religious right candidate speaking AGAINST "a rigid separation between church and state"?
    Yup, it's RON PAUL!

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2114922






    More LIL'AIPAC stretching the truth or not telling the whole story


    Ron Paul was speaking against the Federal Government telling a state, country, city or town what they can do in relation to Separation of Church and State. His point was that its his belief that if a County Board of Supervisors wants to pray before its meeting, that its not the place of the Federal Government to come in and say that cannot pray. That's all there was to this, while you try to make it appear that he is for goverment and religion mixing. Re-read his statements in their entirety.


    you just don't like Paul because he would end coddling Israel and would send AIPAC out of the Halls of Congress and perhaps have them register as the foreign Government entity that they are. That would end a lot of our middle eastern problems right there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 4:23 PM GMT
    Look at his record and what he stands for, not some words attributed to him. 'nuff said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 5:01 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidLook at his record and what he stands for, not some words attributed to him. 'nuff said.

    Mocktwinkie, this is part of his record.
    It's not just "some words", but pages and pages that he published over decades.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 5:26 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 said
    mocktwinkie saidLook at his record and what he stands for, not some words attributed to him. 'nuff said.

    Mocktwinkie, this is part of his record.
    It's not just "some words", but pages and pages that he published over decades.





    LIL'AIPAC --- Use your comprehension skill while reading and you cannot avoid seeing my point above that Ron Paul is not for mixing Church and State, but he is for local and State choice without Federal Government Intervention on matters of Church and State.


    Again, your motive is fear of loss of US Coddling of Israels every action that comes from bowing to Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) influence and money in our halls of congress.

    Like Paul says, let them run their own business and GET OUT OF OURS !!

    AIPAC should be considered a foreign entity because it represents and pushes for Israel's interests and desires, not the US interests, Just review AIPAC's pushing for war with Iraq along with its Neo Con partners for the best example of what we get for adherence to AIPAC propaganda.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jan 29, 2012 6:58 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    Wolverine4 saidSee also:

    Can you identify the religious right candidate speaking AGAINST "a rigid separation between church and state"?
    Yup, it's RON PAUL!

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2114922






    More LIL'AIPAC stretching the truth or not telling the whole story


    Ron Paul was speaking against the Federal Government telling a state, country, city or town what they can do in relation to Separation of Church and State. His point was that its his belief that if a County Board of Supervisors wants to pray before its meeting, that its not the place of the Federal Government to come in and say that cannot pray. That's all there was to this, while you try to make it appear that he is for goverment and religion mixing. Re-read his statements in their entirety.


    you just don't like Paul because he would end coddling Israel and would send AIPAC out of the Halls of Congress and perhaps have them register as the foreign Government entity that they are. That would end a lot of our middle eastern problems right there.


    +1
    I have to be honest.

    I agree

    Some of Paul's ideas are a little out there. But i think he is the most authentic person out there.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2012 3:23 AM GMT
    From the topic documenting

    Ron Paul's history of anti-gay slurs
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2147443

    mocktwinkie saidThe lie that he's "racist" because of a few comments in "his" newsletters that he said were never written by him and which he has repudiated incessantly (they've never been linked

    jprichva respondedit has been revealed this week that he DID read and PROOF the articles in his newsletter before he sent them out, contrary to your sad attempt to whitewash him

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2012 7:09 AM GMT
    Ron Paul Wants You To Know He Is Still Not a Bigot
    http://austinist.com/2012/02/03/everyones_favorite_dotty_uncle_aust.php

    Ron Paul may have made some odd friends on his road to marginal relevance. Allegations of ties to American and British neo-Nazi groups became all the buzz yesterday, after a document dump by Hacktivist collective Anonymous disclosed emails describing frequent contact and coordination between the Paul campaign and leaders of the organizations.


    E-mails Show Meetings Between Ron Paul And White Supremacists
    http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/emails-show-meetings-between-ron-paul-and-white-supremacists

    New emails released by the hacker group “anonymous” prove that Ron Paul met with white supremacist supporters, Jamies Kelso and Bill Johnson. Kelso is the former assistant to notorious white supremacist Klansman, David Duke and the owner of several white supremacist sites. Kelso is also a friend of Stormfront owner Don Black as well as a moderator for his site.

    Bill Johnson is the chairman for the white supremacist American Third Position Party. In 1989 he wrote a book that advocated repealing the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution and deporting all non-whites from America. Ron Paul had previously endorsed Bill Johnson for for a seat on the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2008. Paul would retract his endorsement after Johnson’s racist views were made public.

    In previously released emails Kelso boasted of being asked to be Johnson’s “personal assistant” and referred to Johnson as “Ron Paul’s top man in Southern Calif. for the last 3 years.”