Politics

Presidential Election and Election Coverage 2008: Ron Paul a Racist and Anti-Semite?

Gaurav Bhola Makes a Case Against Ron Paul

Written by Gaurav Bhola, MSM, Managing Editor & Community Manager on December 12, 2007 11:18 pm EST

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Ron Paul and his Presidential Election 2008 bid to become the Republican Presidential Candidate may have hit a speed bump. The Ron Paul 2008 campaign and Ron Paul may have some explaining to do to the American public. It is alleged that Ron Paul made racist and anti-Semitic statements in his eight-page newsletter The Ron Paul Political Report, founded in 1985. In the DailyKos, writer phenry gives great detailed insight into the matter. The Houston Chronicle first brought to public limelight Ron Paul’s musings in his The Ron Paul Political Report. So far, neither Ron Paul nor the Ron Paul 2008 campaign has made public any issues of his newsletter.

Here are some excerpts from the Houston Chronicle article 05/23/1996:

The Racist Ron Paul

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.”Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,” Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “”as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:
“”Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “”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 Anti-Semite Ron Paul

In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government’s U.S. lobbying efforts…Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “”By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Ron Paul thus far, has defended the allegations by insinuating that he had no control over those particular issues’ content and a ghostwriter wrote the particular articles for The Ron Paul Political Report. Hence, Ron Paul is not denying the published contents but the authorship and editorial control over his own newsletter, a newsletter that carried his name.

However, wouldn’t common sense and logic impede acceptance of his defense of the published words in his The Ron Paul Political Report.

Also, even if we suspend common sense and logic regarding his defense on the issue, wouldnt we again be impeded by common sense and logic, in order to believe that a newsletter with seven thousand subscriptions didnt reserve one subscription addressed to Ron Paul’s home. Moreover, is it plausible to believe that he would pay for mass publication of the newsletter, out of his pocket, without reviewing the content beforehand? Highly unlikely.

Logically, how can Ron Paul’s vanity prohibit him from reading any issue of The Ron Paul Political Report? Similarly, Ron Paul using his own funds to finance his newsletter, not being aware of how, what, and where of his newsletter seems implausible to me.

Additionally, outrageous and egregious is that when those particular issues of The Ron Paul Political Report were published and disseminated; he didnt admonish the articles content nor denounce the racist and anti-Semitic statements. So by staying silent on the issues at the time of the newsletters’ publication, was he simply endorsing and condoning the racist and anti-Semitic contained within?

Furthermore, even if common sense and logic permits us to accept Ron Paul’s assertion that a ghostwriter wrote the articles in question; we would have to suspend reality by accepting that he doesnt know who the ghostwriter is? In such a mom-n-pop small newsletter like The Ron Paul Political Report, how is it possible not to know who is writing for you, especially on your behalf. If he knows the person who wrote the articles that means Ron Paul at worse, associates with racists and Anti-Semites and at worst, is friends with such a person and shares such despicable views.

Now let’s look at a comparison of basic job duties of Ron Paul the publisher/editor/writer of The Ron Paul Political Report and Ron Paul the Congressman:

Publisher/Editor/Writer Ron Paul - The Ron Paul Political Report

Responsibility includes general oversight of all aspects of newsletter publishing including writing, marketing, editorial review, layout review, financial management, etc
Implement checks and balances for proper editorial review
Reading in detail the entire content of the newsletter before and after publication
Ability to comprehend what is written in the newsletter

Congressman Ron Paul

Responsibility includes writing, sponsoring, and supporting legislation
Read in detail the entire content of the legislation before sponsoring it
Read in detail the entire content of another Congressman’s legislation before supporting it
Ability to comprehend what is written in the legislation

So if we are to forgo common sense and logic as Americans and accept that Ron Paul’s duties as publisher and editor of The Ron Paul Political Report were remiss during publication of only those particular controversial newsletter editions, then it reflects poorly on his judgment and oversight abilities as publisher.

The basic duty of a Congressman as it relates to a publisher and editor is to review (meaning read) in detail legislation you sponsor and support. Herein, if he didnt read nor review that vile content, how can we expect him to be a competent public servant as Congressman?

If Ron Paul was remiss in his basic duty as publisher in not reviewing his own newsletter, what makes you think he is not doing the same as Congressman by avoiding his job of critical reading and review of the people’s legislation?

Scary, thought isnt it. Isnt that how we classify incompetence?

So let’s assume that he is not fulfilling his basic duties as Congressman, what makes you think he is fulfilling his other duties as Congressman?

Hence, on what merit is Ron Paul seeking to be President of our great country when he may not be fulfilling even the most rudimentary duties as Congressman and in the past as Publisher/Editor of The Ron Paul Political Report.

The American public would agree that if he couldnt manage with proper oversight the content of his own publication and have checks and balances in place to make sure vile articles such as attributed to the controversial issues of the mom-n-pop The Ron Paul Political Report could never be published; on what credible basis are Americans to believe that he can carry on the basic duties of a President in oversight of the US and managing checks and balances with the other two branches of government, Congress, and Supreme Court.

Thus, Ron Paul’s defense completely falls apart under common sense and logical scrutiny. Where is the fundamental journalistic scrutiny from the “legitimate media?” Why are people contributing to this man? Why are some Americans supporting him? Who is voting for this man to be re-elected to an august body such as the Congress? Is he fit to sponsor and support legislation in Congress that affects all Americans with his belief system?

Lastly, Ron Paul is unwilling to accept responsibility for the contents of his newsletter that carried his name. A publisher is always responsible for the content of his publication. Ron Paul is attempting to escape accountability and responsibility as a publisher and blames someone else, a “ghostwriter” for the content; then on what basis can he ridicule George Bush, another “public servant” who doesnt accept responsibility for his actions and blames others for his misdeeds. Can the country handle another incarnation of George Bush in Ron Paul?

The supporters of Ron Paul must not be carried away by the veneer of Ron Paul but examine the underpinnings of the man himself.

Would you really support him after reading Gaurav Bhola Makes a Case Against Ron Paul?

If you do, God help you.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.gimmiethescoop.com/presidential-election-and-election-coverage-2008-ron-paul-racist-anti-semite/trackback

12 Responses to “Presidential Election and Election Coverage 2008: Ron Paul a Racist and Anti-Semite?”

SupporterOfFreedom Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Before I get into anything else I want to make 2 points.
1. I am not racist.
2. This was a horribly written blog. Whoa, dude, you can use big words to sound smart. You also spend about the equivalent of a page of text to essentially say that Dr. Paul obviously knew about the remarks or made them himself. We got it. Could have gotten that out in less than a paragraph.

Moving on, it is pretty much fact that every candidate, every person for that matter, has a few skeletons in their closet. The former NYC mayor has like 13 wives and his kids won’t speak to him. Huckabee said we should basically quarantine everyone with AIDS and not help them live. Fred Thompson was on Law & Order. For you to sit here and nit pick something the good doctor said 10 years ago and then question his competence to run the country is a ridiculous attempt at dissuading voters from electing a candidate you probably do not like.

How bout next time you just critique his stances on important presidential issues (the ‘war on terror’, our diminishing economy, illegal immigration, etc.) and try to sound like less of a jack ass.
Chris S Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 11:16 am
The newsletter was ghostwritten like 20 years ago. Some people asked RP if they could put his name on a newsletter and he said ok without knowing that the kind of things you quote above would be in it. He took responsibility and cleared this up in 1992 and in the NYT.

None of this is new, but it is ALL that you’ve got, which is pretty sad.
Gaurav Bhola, MSM, Managing Editor & Community Manager Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I am merely pointing out to America,sensible Americans, and sensible Ron Paul supporters this “public servant’s” beliefs.

He never denied the published material. Also, if he is not a racist, why didn’t he make a public statement denouncing the contents when they were originally published in The Ron Paul Report.
Chris S Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 11:25 am
It looks like someone thinks that trashing Ron Paul with the typical 20 year old ghostwritten newsletter smear will get blog traffic.

Wikipedia is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy

In 2001, Paul took “moral responsibility” for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist”) were “the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.”[58] The magazine defended Paul’s decision to protect the writer’s confidence in 1996, concluding, “In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.”[33] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations “quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.”[10]

Like I said, you are decades behind and this is old news. Take a hike.
John D Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Ron Paul said he had nothing to do with the newsletter years ago so I’m not sure what else you want. But Ron Paul clearly isn’t a racist. A racist wouldn’t say this:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/candidates/paul.html
=============================
I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement.
….
For instance, Blacks make up 14 percent of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63 percent of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change.
………
You know, over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid all my beliefs, but I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you’re rich, you get away with it; if you’re poor and you’re from the inner city, you’re more likely to be prosecuted and convicted.

Today, with the DNA evidence, there have been too many mistakes. So I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.
==================================

As for the Israeli lobby issue, even Israeli media admits that Ron Paul is not being anti semitic in his position.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=921350&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
=================================
And there’s the “Lobby” issue. Paul did denounce, more than once, the pro-Israel lobby on Capitol Hill. He said that members of Congress have been “intimidated by the influence of AIPAC” (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). He also said that “the assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the [Iraq] war”.

Is this anti-Semitic? Is it biased?

I think it is the obvious price that Israel supporters are paying for being - well - influential. No, AIPAC is not responsible for the war in Iraq. But being a strong lobby comes with a price: the price of being singled out by a libertarian candidate for the Presidency.
================================

So do some better research in the future.
Gaurav Bhola, MSM, Managing Editor & Community Manager Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Great. You’re quoting a Wiki, which anyone can edit. Also, this Ron Paul Wiki page is put up either by the Ron Paul Campaign or a Ron Paul supporter.

So what if the story is a decade old, what is that suppose to mean? That doesn’t mean it is any less credible.

He chose to go into public service, and knew that his past activities would be open for public scrutiny.

He can’t run away from his past. He has to be held accountable to his deeds.

I am simply attempting to hold him accountable.

This issue still keeps coming up because Ron Paul hasn’t provided any credible evidence to the contrary.
Chris S Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
No. The issue keeps coming up because hacks in the blogosphere think that they can up their web traffic by trolling the Ron Paul Forums.

So who do you support for President? What candidate do you consider accountable?

Oh, and counter John D’s post.
Gaurav Bhola, MSM, Managing Editor & Community Manager Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I am not seeking publicity but trying to understand the disparity of his past and his new incarnation.

Quote:
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”

Quote:
Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist” publication.

Quote:
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.
Source - NY Times

If Ron Paul is not a racist or an Anti-Semite, then why doesn’t he simply release all of his previously published newsletters?

What is he afraid of? It wasn’t as if some private diary was leaked to the press, it was previously published document disseminated to the public.

So, if he was proud of his newsletter before, why not make it public again?

So, stop making excuses you guys, let him make his newsletters available for public scrutiny.

What is he hiding? Explain that!
John D Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
If something is “once public” it’s “always public”. Why does he need to drudge it up when people like you are going to do that for him? He’s already disavowed the article. Enough said. Besides, what makes you think he even kept a copy?

I have totally refuted all of your racist charges without resorting to name calling. A racist (white anyway) would NEVER say that blacks are being treated unfairly by the drug war. The racist position (in case you missed it) is that blacks are disproportionately represented in prison because of “racial inferiority”.

Bottom line, you really don’t have a case. And what about your anti semite charge? Why is it anti semitic to point out what even Israeli media acknowledges? AIPAC is a VERY effective lobby and if you’re against lobbyists having to much influence in Washington you HAVE to speak out against AIPAC. After all they are involved in a criminal case right now for spying against the U.S. Is the prosecutor in the case “anti semitic”?

What is YOUR agenda? Explain that!
Scott Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
The Zionist movement is about suppressing information and criticism. Don’t believe me - believe former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky.
WD Says:
December 24th, 2007 at 3:28 am
I was one of the 25,000 first time contributors to the Ron Paul presidential campaign on Dec. 16th. I really like Dr. Paul’s adhesion to some of the philosophies of our founding fathers. I especially like the “no entanglements” part.

So many of Dr. Paul’s young supporters are written off as freaks, flakes or worse. What I have come to understand is that many of them are the families and friends of all these young people coming back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our government has admitted that almost 4,000 of our children have been killed so far. Tens of thousands have been horribly maimed and burned. A literal army of teenagers and twenty-somethings in their wheelchairs. They have been permanently disfigured and they will forever suffer from this insane war for Israel.

I am almost fifty years old and I have always voted. I have already changed my party to Republican for the primary in my state.

For the first time in my life, I sent $50 to a politician.
Gaurav Bhola, MSM, Managing Editor & Community Manager Says:
January 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I don’t believe that Ron Paul supporters are flakes, freaks, and so on. I believe that if you evaluated his positions, you would be less likely to support him.