Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Rebuts Hit Piece Published In The New Republic On The Eve Of The New Hampshire Primary

Special Note: As of right now, the New Hampshire results are still being tallied and can be viewed in real time HERE.

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul issued a statement on January 8th, 2007, rebutting a hit piece published on the New Republic website. The New Republic's report shows excerpts from newsletters published under Ron Paul's name back during the 1990s which have been orchestrated and exaggerated to make it appear as if he held "white supremacist" views.

Here's Ron Paul's statement in full:

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

During his campaign, Ron Paul has unquestionably established his credentials as a "non-racist". He has repeatedly described racism as an ugly form of collectivism. However, this is insufficient for an establishment which has adopted anti-racism as an article of faith. Anti-racists see only a two-dimensional world; racists and anti-racists. Those who are non-racist are viewed as "racist", because the establishment uses anti-racism as a means to politically and culturally subjugate the white community. The end result of anti-racism is being witnessed in Zimbabwe and South Africa. So any charges of racism directed at Ron Paul can be safely ignored; they are politically motivated.

Now, here's the most controversial portion of the New Republic article:

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "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," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

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."

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

Some of the Freedom Report archives discussed in The New Republic piece can be found HERE. Other referenced archives can be indirectly accessed through this other TNR article.

Even if Ron Paul personally authored the referenced articles, there appears to be nothing which is actually untrue. And the reference to David Duke is hardly "celebratory", but a statement of fact. Duke scared the blazes out of the Establishment so much that then President George H. W. Bush intervened and urged Republicans not to vote for him.

The fact that both establishment liberals AND establishment conservatives are BOTH ganging up on Ron Paul shows that he is a genuine threat to the established order in America. It is even more reason to support Ron Paul. Those who've had the best intentions for society, whether it be Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, or Ron Paul, have always met with the most vitriolic and broad-based elite opposition.

Like any other candidate, Ron Paul is best judged by his current statements and by his voting record as a Congressman. Don't fall for the trap of judging him by what the elite are saying. The elite have worked tirelessly to make America more intrusive, invasive, oppressive, and expensive for mainstream America. They are the ones who have dumped all these seatbelt laws and DUI laws on us. They are the ones who've infested our airports with knuckle-dragging TSA thugs who anally probe two month old babies and 78-year old crones for bombs, even though the 9-11 terrorists were young men of Middle Eastern descent. They are the ones who've put so much of our land off limits and added expense to our lives through environmental hysteria. They openly lie and tell you the sun is shining brightly at midnight. They are the real enemy of liberty and of America.

Join Ron Paul and restore liberty to America today!


  1. As the 2008 elections are upon us, many people are discussing the various candidates' records and statements. I encourage you all to be informed voters about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by visiting the following site:


    I hope that you will all make a well-researched voting decision.

  2. Intelligent, but more importantly PERSUASIVE, Republicans are scary to liberals, and to the liberal media in general. The usual tactic is to portray them as rascists, nazis, and bigots in order to discredit them, instead of challenging their ideas.

    You may not believe me, but I said a couple months ago that Ron Paul would soon be portrayed as a rascist, because he has a sound message, may be the only candidate who has read the Constitution, is persuasive, and is not a democrat.

    Most recently it happened to George Allen, governor of Virginia (remember Mukakah?), he was looking at a Presidential run, and most political insiders agree that he would have been the Republican to beat.

    It happened to Buchanan, who you should note, Ron Paul is nearly a clone of on every issue.

    It happened to Clarence Thomas.

    It happened to Trent Lott.

    They tried to do it to Newt Gingrich.

    It happened to Judge Bork, and numerous others.

    It will continue to happen, because the tactic is effective.