About
A progressive online community for the Granite State. More...
Getting Started
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce

NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)

ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS


Ron Paul: Black Men Are 'Potential and Actual Terrorists'

by: jhutson

Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 19:30:35 PM EST


Across the ideological spectrum, only one presidential candidate has identified in black-and-white terms the "actual and potential terrorists" who are destroying America. That candidate is Ron Paul (R).

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." [FN 1]

Paul published a newsletter that issued those words under his byline. He has also taken "moral responsibility" for those words. Yet nine years later, Paul blamed an unnamed staffer for writing them, and claimed that it would have been "too confusing" for him to denounce those words when they were first mailed to his supporters in the column under his byline in the Ron Paul Political Report in 1992.

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.)

jhutson :: Ron Paul: Black Men Are 'Potential and Actual Terrorists'
Paul's deflection that he did not write those words and did not know about them prior to publication rings false. At the time, he did not denounce those words or announce the firing of any staffer involved in propagating this racist propaganda. No, he waited nine years. Then he claimed that those words for which he had already admitted responsibility, had not been written by him -- even though he did publish and circulate the newsletter.

But there is ample evidence -- despite Paul's denial nine years after the fact -- that he did indeed author the column that bore his byline. For example, that infamous 1992 column was written in the first person. For example, consider this "I" statement:

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." A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny 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? I've never heard of it.

In this anecdote, Paul speaks of "a lady I know" who is described as "my friend." He also claims that if any white child is taught to hate, "I've never heard of it."

Really? Has Paul not heard of white supremacists who teach children to hate? Well, they've heard of him. Paul's supporters include Don Black and David Duke of Stormfront Radio, a white supremacist broadcast that features, on the bottom of its pages, a fundraising banner for Paul's campaign.


According to FEC records, on September 30, 2007, Black donated $500 to Paul's presidential campaign. [FN 2] Paul's campaign is aware of the  contribution, and the fact that it comes from a leader of a white supremacist clearinghouse. But he has not returned the contribution. And his campaign considered blocking the hate site from linking to his  campaign donation page, but so far has decided not to do so.

How difficult is it, really, for Paul to distance himself from the Stormfront site, whose logo declares "White Pride World Wide"?


Does Paul share a white supremacist world view? His views may have evolved since 1992, when the following statements appeared in his newsletter under his byline, framing African-American men as "terrorists" [FN 3]:

The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is "Eurocentric." They demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks understanding it....

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. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them....

There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones....

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.  Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief 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. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable....

Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers....

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.

Although Paul's racist screed first appeared under his byline in 1992, he waited nine years to disclaim those words. In 1996, Paul told reporters from the AP and Houston Chronicle that those words were written in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [FN 4] Yet there were no statistical reports claiming that the vast majority of African-American males in our nation's capital were criminals. That was, and is, a racist myth.

Paul attempted to distance himself from those words, telling the Texas Observer in 2001:

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....

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 the 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.' [FN 5]

Writing in the same 1992 issue of his newsletter, Paul opined that government should lower the age at which black children accused of crimes can be prosecuted as adults.

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. [FN 6]

A separate but unequal justice system for African-American children? That is a racist policy outlined under Paul's name. If he has changed his tune since then, he has certainly not gone out of his way to disassociate himself from his white supremacist supporters.

It is entirely reasonable to suppose that Paul did indeed write the racist words that appeared under his byline in his newsletter, which he published. It is also reasonable to inquire why Paul has dragged his feet in distancing himself from white supremacists, such as Don Black and David Duke, who even now continue to solicit funds on his behalf and link to his campaign through the Stormfront white supremacist web site.

The bottom line is that, whether Paul misrepresented his authorship of the racist screed in 1992, or whether he was lying about its authorship in 2001, he is a liar, and he continues to enjoy the full-throated support of white supremacists. Since the current presidential election has focused on terrorism as a front-burner issue, it is fair game to ask Paul to release all issues of his racist newsletter published since 1985, so the voting public can evaluate whether and how his views of African-American men as so-called "terrorists" have evolved.

FOOTNOTES

FN 1: Ron Paul, "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism," Ron Paul Political Report, 1992. URL: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5.

FN 2: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee, Schedule A Filings for Report #FEC-307525. Filed with the Federal Election Commission on October 15, 2007. URL: http://disclosure.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00432914/307525/sa/17A/10.

FN 3: Paul, Op. cit. See also Alan Bernstein, "Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent: GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime." Houston Chronicle, May 23, 1996. URL: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

FN 4: Bernstein, Ibid.

FN 5: Sam Gwynne, "Dr. No." Texas Monthly, October 2001. URL: http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7

FN 6: Bernstein, Op. cit.

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
-- (0.00 / 0)
I strongly disagree with your argument that Paul has been lying about the authorship of the article. He admitted responsibility for it having been printed, but there is one glaring reason that makes me doubt he wrote the article: the idea of collective blame.

The fact that the article criticizes Blacks in general ascribes a collectivist mentality to a man who has strongly argued individual responsibility. Read any other of his writings, or listen to his speeches from 20 years ago, and you'll see he has been consistent.

Yes, allowing the racist article to be published under his authority was a mistake. But the claim that he was the author is also a mistake.


Okay, but Paul was the author (0.00 / 0)
Paul bylined it. He published it. He published it in The Ron Paul Report. He waited nine years to distance himself from it. He still does not distance himself from white supremacists who endorse and support him. Yes, Paul has been consistent: his record as a racist is consistent.

[ Parent ]
So if Ron Paul is not a racist, (0.00 / 0)
then why does he not release all the issues of his racist newsletter, which he has published since 1985?

[ Parent ]
Excellent article. (4.00 / 1)
Suggest you cross-post it at Daily Kos.

The need to be somebody. (4.00 / 1)
People who need to feel special just so they can be "somebody," rather than a nobody, are to be pitied.  Ditto for people who feel terror when they see someone whose skin color, or size, or gender, or age is different from their own.  Lots of people are afraid of lots of things and some people thrive on making them afraid of lots more, because fear helps these abusers keep their followers under control.

Is Ron Paul someone who trades on fear?  Frankly, I don't know and I don't even care. Individual liberty (his apparent cause) isn't something we achieve by removing all social supports.  Liberty is sustained by everyone exercising self-control and recognizing that social support is an entitlement, not an excuse to assert dominance and extract subservience.

What seems increasingly obvious is that early childhood deprivation can never be made up. It's not a matter of material poverty; it's a matter of being made to feel good for nothing.  Even a lifetime of insisting on one's specialness, it seems, can't make up for that.  


This is an important article (4.00 / 1)
At first glance, one might wonder, why is there an article about a Republican candidate on Blue Hampshire?  But I think this is actually quite important as a lot of Democrats and some Progressives are thinking about voting for Paul.  This is definitely true for some Independents who lurk on this site.

To portray himself as a Libertarian who appeals to the Free Staters is false advertising.  A true libertarian wants the government out of private affairs, totally.  So, a true Libertarian would be against the government inserting it's interest in women's healthcare decision--- and would  not advocate the criminalization of abortion; a true libertarian would not be against gay rights; but, apparently I don't know what a true libertarian's position would be on race...
Hmmm...

I think this paints Ron Paul in a new light, his  HOPEfor America is less hopeful than at first glance.  Thanks for this  diary.

Waking up on November 5th with no regrets.


If Ron Paul is still a racist why did he show up to the PBS debate? (0.00 / 0)
Thank you for posting this, I like to see both the positive and negative things people have to say about the person I am going for. I believe you that he had wrote that in 1992 and such, but back then it was easier to blame a race or a certain ethnicity. It is still wrong, but it didn't sound as wrong back then. He isn't releasing the articles now because he is embarrassed about them and it will hurt the campaign. I don't view him as a liar but he has to do what he has to do to win just like any other candidate is doing right now except a lot of them are doing worst things than Paul. If this is the only "scandal," you've got on him, then I say he is still telling more truth than any other candidate out there. He could have denied the whole journal thing but he didn't and he isn't a racist because he went to the PBS debate unlike most more popular republican candidates!

I'm guessing you're a lot younger than me (0.00 / 0)
Racism sounded just as bad in 1992 as it does today. But maybe if you were a teenager and trying out new and dangerous ideas it didn't seem that way.

[ Parent ]
1992 Racism (0.00 / 0)
Elwood's right, racism sounded just as bad in 1992.

I would note that after the LA Riots (when this seems to be written), people fell into a couple camps. Some people let the ugliness they had hidden inside out.

I think you may not be old enough to remember the experience of watching that on TV, and feeling helpless and horrified that this was happening here.

It was surreal. To explain it to ourselves, we all had to reach deep into ourselves for explanations.

The explanation you came up with at that time says an awful lot about how you view the world. I was essentially a libertarian at that time, and my response was we can do better than this.

Paul's response seems to have been "That's the way those people are."

Wake up to it -- the people that end up in power around libertarians are racist. They would have loved to wall off South Central L.A. and let "those people" fight it out.  



[ Parent ]
Sorry for being too young (0.00 / 0)
Maybe I didn't understand. Although he still rocked in the PBS debates, please tell me if you still think he is a racist?

[ Parent ]
This is old news (0.00 / 0)
First of all, the alleged racist content in his newsletter from the early 90's is old news. It was covered by the New York Times, and they analyzed it against many writings verified to be by him, and found the style totally different. They concluded that he was telling the truth. The New York Times isn't exactly known for being Republican or Libertarian apologists. So yes, he unknowingly hired a racist ghostwriter whom he fired once he found out about it, and then to compound matters listened to bad advice from campaign staffers (whom he hopefully also fired) nine years ago.

As for the Don Black thing, this is also old news. The campaign did address this in an open letter Jesse Benton sent in response to Mona Charon's poorly researched hit piece column that came out a couple of weeks ago:

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul's send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen's column. Perhaps a better explanation for his "contribution" is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive"

You are trying to smear the one man in Congress who has fought (sometimes standing alone) against a very real Nazi-fication of America. Check out Naomi Wolf's Fascism in 10 Easy Steps http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/...
Bush and Cheney are the masterminds, but they have had plenty of help from the loyal opposition Democrats. Meanwhile, you (unsuccessfully) try to connect the one man who has been relentlessly fighting it to bunch of backwoods rednecks who get their jollies by running around in white hoods.

There is a very real Nazi threat in this country and only Ron Paul can and will put an end to it. Wake up!


Nazi-ism in this country (4.00 / 1)
Has always paired itself "small government" and "responsibility" rhetoric.

It turns out this isn't an accident, although it took me years to recognize it. I don't know what Ron Paul thinks, but I can tell you the place that libertarians have occupied in history -- they have been some of the prime enablers of a elitist movement to remove the restrictions and regulations on business so that business can make more profit at the expense of the common good, and to remove the social safety net so that people can live in perpetual fear of business.

This may not be their historical aim, but it is their historical effect.

Ron Paul will chip away exactly the protections that allow citizens to stand up to their government and the multinational corps that run it. I don't know if you have a family -- but I'll tell you this -- if you want a subservient population, have them depend on their employer for their family's health insurance. Tell them they have no unemployment insurance. Take away food stamps. Remove workplace protections. Make them fear catastrophic illness.

Somewhere Cheney is laughing. You're making him very happy. Keep it up. The libertarians have been the unwitting tools of authoritarians and Nazi wanna-bes for the last 50 years -- I'm sure the next 50 will be no different.

 



[ Parent ]
Yup. (0.00 / 0)
It is indeed old news that Ron Paul is a racist.

And Wake Up! The New York Times is indeed known for being Republican apologists. Not just David Brooks, but the infamous Judith Miller.


[ Parent ]
The Libertarian shell-game in a nutshell (0.00 / 0)
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. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them....

A famous sociologist was once asked why the U.S., which has been progressive in other areas, never adopted socialism.

The answer: racism. The lower class in America is prodded at every turn to identify with rich white counterparts over their lazy black counterparts in the lower class.

So the lower class loves it because it makes them, though poor, better morally than their black brothers. They're boot-strappers, just like the rich, right? And the upper class loves it because once you take away the social safety net, the lower class is at your mercy, black and white.

Here's an idea liberty lovers -- why not use the government to  protect the people from the institutions that would exploit them. It's a revolutionary idea, don't you think?




Powered by: SoapBlox