Ron Paul: Black Men Are 'Actual and Potential Terrorists'
Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 02:26:37 PM PDT
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.)
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 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.
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/....
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/....
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/...
FN 4: Bernstein, Ibid.
FN 5: Sam Gwynne, "Dr. No." Texas Monthly, October 2001. URL: http://www.texasmonthly.com/...
FN 6: Bernstein, Op. cit.
Permalink | 47 comments