"Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape!" (note, in quotes)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ron Paul's campaign isn't really a ship. It's a little dinghy.

With a currently inflated sail and not much more.

 

[mkelvin]

Yes. In that earlier book, he said he considers the civil rights movement, the women's rights movements, etc. to be anathema to individual rights.

That's just bizarre. There's a broad consensus that voting by blacks and women, and participation in politics by blacks and women, and removing barriers to opportunities for those groups to get higher education in various fields and become professionals has benefited everyone. I think barring those groups from voting and participating in politics and having barriers to opportunities for members of those groups to develop and share their skills and talents is what's anathema to individual rights.

He said that ALL of the civil rights and women's rights movements were anathema to individual rights? I highly doubt it. I'd like to see the quotes. Don't believe every deceptive paraphrase you read here. Ron Paul has long opposed Jim Crow laws which imposed racial segregation in public facilities, and he certainly is in favor of equal voting rights for blacks and women. His opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pertains only to those parts that made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate, because that infringes on their property rights. As a libertarian, he would say that if you want to only do business with handicapped albino lesbians from Mongolia, you should be able to do that without government interference.

 

[mkelvin]

I have not done that.



More of the same. Your ability to prove that Ron Paul is not Dr. Mengele or Hitler or a Klansman is not disputed.

Your inability to respond to the charges that Ron Paul is responsible for racist comments in his newsletter, and that he has failed to give an adequate explanation for them is the problem.

Do you think it is impossible for someone to make racist comments if they are not Dr. Mengele (or his moral equivalent)?

Again... Dr. Paul HAS taken responsibility for them. He has apologized probably 100 times for not more closely monitoring every word that went out in the newsletters. He has answered every question put to him on this subject. You don't think his explanation is adequate, I think it is.

But hey, believe what you want. And go ahead and support the racists who are imprisoning blacks at a far higher rate than whites in this country, and oppose the one guy who is trying to stop it because you don't like some comments he didn't write some 20 years ago.

 

[mkelvin]

Will anyone step up to defend the following found in a book Ron Paul wrote himself in 1987? From "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years" by Ron Paul:

"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care."

Perfectly reasonable statement. Why should I be forced to pay for your healthcare, anymore than I should be forced to pay for your groceries, your TV cable bill, or your car insurance?

"Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found,

Every year new groups organize to demand their 'rights'. White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone."

I agree with this statement. People should not be viewed collectively as members of racial groups, but treated as individuals. To do otherwise is racism.

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Sexual harassment is certainly not to be condoned, but why do we need federal government lawyers butting in? If the person has committed violence against you, call the cops. If he is telling offensive jokes or doing other creepy things, you should complain to his superiors. If nothing is done, you can always quit and tell the world on your Facebook page what a creep the guy is.

 

[mkelvin]

Nova Land wrote: "You seem to have concluded Ron Paul did not say "I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.

"Did you talk personally to Ron Paul to find out what he knows about how those words got in his newsletter? Did you talk personally to Lew Rockwell (who has been named by many as Paul's main ghost-writer, but who denies having written the articles) to find out what he knows? Did you talk to the people who have made and posted scans of the newsletter pages? Did you travel to Wisconsin or Kansas to look at actual copies of the newsletter? If not, how can you possibly have concluded Ron Paul did not say the words which were written in his newsletter?"

Because I have read his books and viewed countless interviews and speeches, and this is clearly not Ron Paul's writing. He has stated countless times that he did not write these words, and even most of his detractors don't believe he wrote them. He has acknowledged writing some articles for the newsletter over the course of some 20 years, but most of it was ghostwritten, including these few offensive passages. It would also be very stupid for him to have written stuff like this, knowing that he may run for office again someday.

 

[mkelvin]

As soon as Paul comes out and admits that he knowingly allowed others to write and publish racist things under his name, and that some of those people still work for him (see the CNN article I linked above) then I'll cut him some slack. As long as he keeps trying to blame others, I'll treat him as the liar that he is behaving like.

"Knowingly"? You have offered no evidence for that. And where is your evidence that some of the people who wrote this stuff still work for him?

 

[varwoche]

Again... Dr. Paul HAS taken responsibility for them. He has apologized probably 100 times for not more closely monitoring every word that went out in the newsletters. He has answered every question put to him on this subject. You don't think his explanation is adequate, I think it is.

Exactly. His apologies/explanations (such as they are, having morphed over the years) strike me as lies that shirk actual responsibility.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

"Knowingly"? You have offered no evidence for that. And where is your evidence that some of the people who wrote this stuff still work for him?

Probably the fact that Paul hasn't said "Yeah, it was this guy, I fired him right away."

 

[raz0rama]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

As you can see, the congressional record shows that Ron Paul voted for MLK day. Thus it is reasonable to believe that he did not write the statements in the newsletter about "Hate Whitey Day." In fact, it is likely that whoever wrote those statements did not know enough about the positions Paul supported at the time to accurately reflect them in the writing.

This does not excuse letting statements like that out under his name in any way, but does lend credibility to Ron Paul's current denial of his writing them.

As for his views, read the full text of the 1988 book quoted up-thread, and see a good overview of his views, which haven't changed much since that book was penned.

He does use ill-advised comparisons, such as AIDS to illustrate his concept of accepting personal responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, but overall the message is simple: anything that requires forcing others to do something against their will is wrong, from social programs that benefit one group of society at the expense of others, to the draft, which when implemented is the modern day equivalent of forced-labor or involuntary servitude. He also points out the absurdity of having a different set of rights for each group, which supposes that rights are things that a Government can grant, as if it owns its citizens.

His foreign policy views, which are what many "conservative" republican publications are attacking him for today, are far from isolationist, they are more accurately described as non-interventionist. He accurately points out that our intervention has a very poor track record in terms of improving our relationships with the nations of the world, or even helping the people we intend to help. But I digress.

 

[mkelvin]

One person's "forcible redistribution" is another person's "paying one's fair share of the community expenses".

That would be how a dishonest person would characterize it. They hate it when their redistribution schemes are called "forcible" because they want everyone to think they are "voluntary." But if we don't pay up, we will find out that there is nothing voluntary about it. So we pay up and the gangsters "redistribute" our money, mostly to themselves and the rich, with a few bucks thrown to the poor people just to make it look good.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

As you can see, the congressional record shows that Ron Paul voted for MLK day. Thus it is reasonable to believe that he did not write the statements in the newsletter about "Hate Whitey Day." In fact, it is likely that whoever wrote those statements did not know enough about the positions Paul supported at the time to accurately reflect them in the writing.

This does not excuse letting statements like that out under his name in any way, but does lend credibility to Ron Paul's current denial of his writing them.

Fascinating. He let someone who has no idea of his voting record or opinions on such important issues write his newsletter.

And he won't tell us who it is.

Ron Paul 2012!

 

[Nova Land]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

As you can see, the congressional record shows that Ron Paul voted for MLK day...

Really? Then please link to the record of that vote so that we can confirm it.

The page you have linked to is not the vote on whether to make MLK Day a holiday. it is a vote on an amendment:

House Vote #624 (Dec 5, 1979)

TO AMEND H.R. 5461, MARTIN LUTHER KING HOLIDAY, BY DESIGNATING THE THIRD MONDAY IN JANUARY RATHER THAN JANUARY 15 AS THE LEGAL HOLIDAY.

It's quite possible that in addition to voting for this amendment (to make the date the third Monday, rather than January 15) Paul also voted to make MLK Day a holiday. It's also quite possible he didn't. Members of congress often vote in favor of amendments to legislation which they then vote against when the amended bill comes up for a vote.

I've read elsewhere that Ron Paul voted against making MLK Day a holiday. I've read Paul's newsletter where Ron Paul claims he voted against making MLK Day a holiday. If you can link to a vote on the bill to make MLK Day a holiday which shows Paul voting in favor, that will indicate those sources are incorrect. But so far you haven't done that.

 

[Nova Land]

Nova Land wrote: "You seem to have concluded Ron Paul did not say "I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day....

... I have read his books and viewed countless interviews and speeches, and this is clearly not Ron Paul's writing.

We've been over this many times in this thread already.

When you hire someone to ghost-write a speech or book for you, and you deliver that speech or publish that book under your name, those words can then be considered yours. Numerous quotes attributed to public figures in books published under their name were ghost-written for them. We still attribute those quotes to them.

If one checks a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell book out of the library, finds an interesting passage in it, and quotes it, the standard practice is to treat that as a quote from Robertson or Falwell -- even though their books were ghost-written. The books were published under their names. Even in cases where we know who the ghost-writers were, we still quote the material as being by Robertson and Falwell. They may not have written the passages themselves, but when they published the words under their names they said them.

Same standard applies to Ron Paul. He may not have written those newsletter items himself. But when those items were published in his newsletter, he said them.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

RP originally voted Yes on a bill in 1979 to make MLK day a holiday on a Sunday. He voted "no" to the 1983 bill that was passed into law making it a Monday holiday.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

"Knowingly"? You have offered no evidence for that. And where is your evidence that some of the people who wrote this stuff still work for him?

Lew Rockwell is still around.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Mkelvin, Oliver, Bill and any other RP supporters. Can you comment on the We The People Act thread?

http://http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7880691

Thanks, I want your take on it.

 

[Nova Land]

RP originally voted Yes on a bill in 1979 to make MLK day a holiday on a Sunday...

Could you provide a source for that? You may be right, and if so this is something which it would be good to clear up. And the simplest way to clear this up would be to provide a link to Congressional Record of some other source which has a record of this vote. I tried to find it, but wasn't able to on a quick Google (and don't have time at the moment for a lengthier search.)

I did find an essay by Don Wolfensberger, The Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday: The Long Struggle in Congress. A section The 1979 Push for the King Holiday begins on page 2 and continues for several pages.

From what's written, it appears to me that there was a proposed amendment to the bill to change the date of the proposed holiday to Sunday, just as there was a proposed amendment to change the date of the proposed holiday to third Monday. Ron Paul may have voted yes on one or both of those amendments. But that's not the issue. The issue is, did he vote in favor of the bill itself?

 

[citizenzen]

Because I have read his books and viewed countless interviews and speeches, and this is clearly not Ron Paul's writing. He has stated countless times that he did not write these words, and even most of his detractors don't believe he wrote them. He has acknowledged writing some articles for the newsletter over the course of some 20 years, but most of it was ghostwritten, including these few offensive passages. It would also be very stupid for him to have written stuff like this, knowing that he may run for office again someday.

I'm assuming you already know about this 1995 video of Ron Paul talking about his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report. He doesn't seem too concerned about the racist material published in it in this interview ...

 

[Alferd_Packer]

The issue is, did he vote in favor of the bill itself?

for the 1983 bill that eventually became law - No,

 

[Nova Land]

The issue is, did he vote in favor of the bill itself?

for the 1983 bill that eventually became law - No,

All right. I think we're agreed he voted against the 1983 bill.

I think we're also agreed he voted for two amendments to the 1979 bill.

Which still leaves us with the question: did he actually vote for the 1979 bill, as has been alleged? So far no evidence to this effect has been presented.

If it's true that he voted for the bill, someone should be able to find and post evidence that he did. The fact that so far no one has done so -- and that Ron Paul apparently has not provided evidence that he did so -- suggests that he likely did not.