This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author—presumably Paul—wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."
Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
Now this is from The New Republic, so fair warning, but reading around the 'sphere, it seems this has been checked out by some and found to be on the level. If so, it's an interesting statement as to how far a minor presidential candidate can get in the process before a serious look is given to his background. It is also something the Ronroids are going to have to deal with and then make a choice.
When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications—ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."
Yeah, see, it works like this - when you put something out with your name in the banner, well, it's yours. And if you don't support or don't want "incendiary" language in the thing, then you ensure none goes out under your name. Otherwise, like the lack of repudiation of Storm Front and their endorsement, people are going to assume you really have no problem with the content.
"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.
Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments.
"I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."
Well that all sounds good, but there's that little fact that those articles went out under a banner which seems to be 40 point type which says "RON PAUL political report". Maybe its just me, but if I got one, that's who I'd think had endorsed the thoughts contained therein.
This basically gets down to Paul’s I’ll take any money, don’t care from whom or for what, just keep it coming philosophy. Either that, or he’s a racist but that doesn’t quite jive, but then who knows. I will believe that the conspiracy prattling he agreed with. The man’s been on the Alex Jones show almost as much as Alex, and he basically admitted to thinking there’s a trilateral commission/North American Union conspiracy.
Oh my. There needs to be some kind of major snarkiness award for that WaPo item Postrel links. And a more prestigious, bigger-bucks one for Postrel’s commending it to us. I’m still laughing. Do read about her cool friends at Reason.
Well, that’s Libertarianism for you. :) It’s only a small step from whining about the big bad Welfare State to railing against imaginary welfare queens in Lazyopolis. Or from hating on Big Gubmint to screeching about the ZOG Machine. Of course, Ron Paul himself seems more concerned by Free Silver than by Silver Shirts.
Ron Paul has said that he did not write those newsleeters; however, he has taken responsibility for letting such things out in his name.
I met Dr. Paul at Americn University in Washington and he and I discussed Martin Luther King and agreed that he and his late wife, Coretta Scott King are two great American heros.
In fact, Ron Paul (and Kuchinich) are the only candidates running for president who would agree or even understand Mrs. King’s following statement on U.S. foriegn policy:
"If we followed the teachings of Martin Luther King (which were derived Jesus and Ghandi)there would not be an Osam bin Laden."
Please give these false accusations of racism against Ron Paul a rest and focus on the good and truth of Ron Paul’s message. The true racists we should be angry with are the anti-Muslim proponents of the "war on terror."
Paul Campaign statement on the newsletters, http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125 includes a statement on King.
Paul Statement on Don Black Contribution: at 4:30 into this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRtZaG63o8
Paul believes our rights belong to individuals, not groups. He’s for ending the War on Drugs which mostly cracks down on minorities, and for ending the War on Terror whose cost effects the poor most of all.
Why not bring up the other candidates mistakes from the 80’s and 90’s.
McCain and the Keating 5. Guiliani and Kerik. Romney and his positions from back then are opposite what they are today.