Ron Paul: I'm The Only Candidate 'That Understands True Racism' (VIDEO)

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Debate moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to explain his controversial newsletters written under his name in the 1990s, which included offensive statements and stereotypes about African Americans.

Paul responded by pointing to his admiration for African American civil rights leaders, saying they had libertarian tendencies.

"More importantly, you ought to ask me what my relationship is for racial relationships," said Paul. "And one of my heroes is Martin Luther King because he practiced the libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience, as did Rosa Parks."

He then discussed what he views as the "true racism" in America:

I'm the only one up here and the only one in the Democratic Party that understands true racism in this country. It's in the judicial system. And it has to do with enforcing the drug laws. The percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites, and yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately. They're prosecuted, imprisoned, way disproportionately. They get the death penalty way disproportionately.

How many times have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or get execution? But poor minorities have an injustice. And they have an injustice in war as well. Because minorities suffer more. Even with the draft, they suffered definitely more. Without a draft, they're suffering disproportionately. If we truly want to be concerned about racism, you ought to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws which are being so unfairly enforced.

Ryan Grim has more here on the drug war and race.

 

 

Comments

[ProgressivesLoveAmerica]

08:31 PM on 01/13/2012

Ron Paul:

The candidate that can give new meaning to the word LibertAryan.

[AnathTheGoddess]

09:31 PM on 01/12/2012

Certain Quirk
12 Fans Become a fan
08:14 AM on 01/11/2012
In matters of jurisprude­nce, I believe the Constituti­on could be interprete­d as having authority on abortion, which is, to treat it the same as any other "life, liberty, property" issue (each person's life being their own property, of course). But I also see the Constituti­on as being non-specif­ic on the particular­s of the issue, enough that it leaves room to allow the states to decide. I would support Ron Paul's decision to leave it to the states.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Certain Quirk, I did not mean to favorite this comment....I was trying to reply, but no button. Second, one of the reasons the Supreme Court made abortion legal is due to equality. Let me explain. If New York allows abortion but the states surrounding it don't, then people with money have access to it, but those without money don't. That is not fair. The justice who wrote the decision was a conservative Republican, but after this case, he became a champion for women's rights.

[Sophist FCD]

04:48 AM on 01/11/2012

"If we truly want to be concerned about racism, you ought to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws which are being so unfairly enforced."

Yeah, except every time a democrat tries to actually do that, they get crucified for being "soft on crime". Mention the sentencing guideline differences between crack and powder cocaine, and conservatives act like you're suggesting that Willie Horton be paroled to their guest room.

Also, Paul *is* aware that Dr. King was somewhat of a socialist, right?

[BiznessLady]

10:19 AM on 01/11/2012

Fanned and faved. I now see where they get those Ron Paul is the only one who this and only one who that meme from.

I think that it takes quite a bit of research to justify those statements, yet they make them here regularly.

[Sean Kruz]

10:40 AM on 01/11/2012

You can't even write that in a complete sentence! That shows hasty conclusions and malice aforethought. Disgraceful.

[ProgressivesLoveAmerica]

07:06 PM on 01/10/2012

Not only does Ron Paul understand true racism, he also knows how to allow true racism to prevail using simple adherence to his libertarian principles:

Simply call it "freedom" and then allow society's worst inclinations to rule completely unfettered and accuse anybody in favor of controlling ugly racist inclinations of being a "socialist" who wants nothing more than to coerce people into accepting your "PC Agenda" through totalitarian dictatorships...

No wonder the good folks over at StormFront LOVE Ron Paul!

[RationalityPlease]

07:59 PM on 01/10/2012

Very, very well said.

Paul's brand of "libertarianism" most definitely removes the "civil" from "civil libertarian".

[Sean Kruz]

10:42 AM on 01/11/2012

Rationality - if you were really rational (or smart) you would know that you just told a big LIE.

[Sean Kruz]

10:42 AM on 01/11/2012

You do NOT know how to research thoroughly!

[ProgressivesLoveAmerica]

08:16 PM on 01/12/2012

Oh yes, I do know how to research thoroughly. I used to be a libertarian and, many years ago, I would have supported a Ron Paul. I know exactly how it is that one may use libertarian principles to tacitly defend the existence of racism in society:

Simply play up the whole "individualism" and "liberty" cards and you suddenly get to ignore that racism is even a problem.

I know all about Ron Paul: the good (anti-war, pro civil liberties, attracts a bunch of military support), the bad (free market fundamentalist ideologue), the mundane (owned a paleoconservative publication), the ridiculous (attracts hilarious conspiracy theorists), and the dangerous (attracts anti-semites and other bigots).

My reserach has revealed that Ron Paul is not a serious or realistic candidate. he is simply the favorite of the formerly politically apathetic, the politically disillusioned, libertarian anarchists, anti-semites and conspiracy theorists. Whether you're embarassed by these facts or not, don'tr deny them or downplay their significance.

A LOT of Paul's fan base like to do that while they bash me personally for daring to even bringing this up or they'll change the subject altogether.

[BiznessLady]

04:00 PM on 01/10/2012

Every four years a group of young kids DISCOVER Ron Paul, they step back and look into his actual goals for this country and then they come back to reality eventually.

This new breed however has put in their mind that he doesn't support the crazy isolationist views that are clearly documented in his writings and speeches for years.

You now credit anything in his name that is scary and over the top to a GHOST WRITER!

Have you ever considered that what if you are wrong about his goals and the consequences of electing fringe candidates?
They never let you know what their true intentions are. Why do you think state after state is dealing with new abortion legislation and the extraction of worker's and voter rights?

Stop posting pro Ron Paul policy twisting videos that gloss over his positions and don't get to the crux of what States Rights brings and why it was determined to be dangerous for THE UNITED STATES of America.

[ToddO in Texas]

05:17 PM on 01/10/2012

I voted for Dr. Paul 3 times, the first time in 1988. I look forward to voting for him again.

Non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism. I think you know that, but I suspect you love the nanny state more than you love freedom.

The fact that nearly all of these newsletters are ghost-written is not in dispute.

Ron Paul 2012.

[BiznessLady]

07:30 PM on 01/10/2012

So we have you to thank for this piece of sh8t.

[ProgressivesLoveAmerica]

09:07 PM on 01/12/2012

If you have a problem with the "nanny state," go to Somalia- but don't advocate that the US turn into that.

By the way, have you seen what happens to children that grow up without a "nanny," if I may use your metaphor?

They grow up being the product of abuse or neglect and they end up being the cause of crime and many other social problems in American society. But then again I guess you'd have to believe in the concpet of "society" to begin with to really appreciate the magnitude of what it is you're really advocating- which is most likely something bordering on anarchy (ususally with some superficial pseudo-intellectual appeal to the US Constitution), if not outright anarchy.

The truth is that what you like to demean as "welfare state" tends to be part-and-parcel of the Social Contract. You can give me this spiel about how you personally don't see any benefit today, but I can tell you things would be a lot worse now in this country with OUT a social safety-net. It doesn't help that the US pays out less in welfare than any other country. I'm sure that doesn't help matters, especially considering we're the only industrialized nation in the world without universal health care or affordable (even free) college.

That's all an infringement on your "liberty" because govt "coerced" you into paying for it through taxation. Crippling debt after you get sick doesn't infringe on your liberty does it?

[Anybodyseenthepopos]

10:21 AM on 01/10/2012

About the newsletters:

Either one of two things are true:

A) Ron Paul is a virulent extreme racist, or…

B) Ron Paul has been defrauding the subscribers to his newsletters and stupidly allowing his name to go on screeds that he is completely unaware of. You pick, Paul defenders: is he evil, or a fraudulent moron?

Column A or column B?

[Sean Kruz]

12:39 PM on 01/10/2012

You scared! LOL

[BiznessLady]

04:00 PM on 01/10/2012

You're in denial

[Sean Kruz]

10:45 AM on 01/11/2012

BiznessLady - You're in denial... of TRUE AMERICAN principles and the principles of Dr. Ron Paul - who is surging in the polls by the way!

[Anybodyseenthepopos]

12:31 PM on 01/11/2012

As a friend of BiznessLady I'll take you're error as a compliment.

[random100]

08:00 AM on 01/10/2012

Again Paul is right except if you take it to it's conclusion that they would need better attorneys. And just where in libertarianville are the great cheap/free attorneys?

[Anybodyseenthepopos]

09:58 AM on 01/10/2012

Still in Junior High dreaming of Law School.

[random100]

10:00 AM on 01/10/2012

That's a sorry dream for a kid to have.

[iamone3]

02:33 AM on 01/10/2012

Ron Paul can beat Obama in the general election. He makes the other contenders for the nomination look like children.

[mp146]

03:00 AM on 01/10/2012

No way...most people just don't accept that even though he published his racist, antisemitic and anti-gay newsletter for more than 10 years written in first person, he didn't agree with it. But should that be the case he is so incompetent that he shouldn't lead a boy scout group, not to mention the country.
And if somebody overlooks that there is his anti-choice, anti-regulation stance. People like to have clean air and water and safe food.

[iamone3]

04:02 AM on 01/10/2012

You might do well to check out ronpaulmyths.com and stop listening to lies about Ron Paul. I am Independent and don`t vote a party ticket. I bet you do.

[Sean Kruz]

12:41 PM on 01/10/2012

Freedom is wonderful... Expand your mind.

You KNOW in your heart Ron Paul is NOT racist. You know that.

[saphielssapphire]

12:19 AM on 01/10/2012

Here we have a candidate that hides behind false words of being die hard for civil liberties. Paul's agenda regarding them is obvious because he seeks to impose his personal beliefs and morals on the nation.

[ToddO in Texas]

02:50 AM on 01/10/2012

You almost get it, but you fall down on the distinction between liberties, rights and entitlements. Liberty, including civil liberty, is something we are all born with, not something bestowed by government. It includes anything we can do that does not infringe on the freedom of others, unless someone is there to limit us. Free speech, freedom of assembly, right to bear arms and others require assertive action by government to prohibit. Political philosophers call these negative rights, because they require no action by government to be exercised.

On the other hand, we have positive rights; entitlements granted by our constitution at the national level. The right to vote and the right to trail by a jury of your peers and the right not to incriminate yourself at that trial are all positive rights bestowed as part of our social contract (Constitution).

The right to abortion services are indeed a civil liberty until it infringes on the right of another, an unborn child. The open question here is when during the gestation process is an elective abortion a homicide. Where is the line? This is of course a state issue anyhow, since laws on homicide are state laws. Ergo, Dr. Paul is still for civil liberties.

All of other criticisms you lodge are unfounded for similar reasons. Dr. Paul is very consistent about civil liberties and constitutional rights and will faithfully support them. He just won't stand for unconstitutional entitlements. Please try not to conflate these with civil liberties.

[BiznessLady]

09:20 AM on 01/10/2012

The right to abortion services are indeed a civil liberty until it infringes on the right of another, an unborn child. The open question here is when during the gestation process is an elective abortion a homicide. Where is the line? This is of course a state issue anyhow, since laws on homicide are state laws. Ergo, Dr. Paul is still for civil liberties.

Abortion services are ALL about terminating a pregnancy. From woman to woman there will be a different reason for making that difficult choice. It might save a life, it might be tubal pregnancy there are a myriad if reasons, There might only be a 25% chance of mortality for the Mother so who makes that choice? The State?

I love how people twist and interpret law and omit amendments to the constitution to support warped interpretations.

All pregnancies don't result in birth. And the US has a high infant mortality rate because of a lack of adequate medical care. Woman have abortions, they always have and they always will. These laws will kill women!
Women who opt for late term abortions only do so under dire circumstances and those who go past that first trimester usually do so because of a lack of adequate health care.

[saphielssapphire]

04:14 PM on 01/10/2012

Actually, you don't get it. Abortion and gay rights do fall under the civil liberty category!
What Paul is doing is imposing his personal and moral beliefs on others.

[Sean Kruz]

12:42 PM on 01/10/2012

LOL... and what president doesn't?

[saphielssapphire]

04:10 PM on 01/10/2012

I have yet to see where Obama voted against his civil liberty stances.

[BiznessLady]

05:47 PM on 01/09/2012

To FastPlastic

I call some supporters of Ron Paul, Paulettes because they sound like love struck, hormonal school kids. We all know people that had to get cheated on treated like crap or beat up before they got the message. That is how they sound to me.

Many answer reasoned debate about this issue of the newsletters with NDAA and calling our POTUS Bush III and evaded the finite details of the issues.

This is why we call people Paulbots, I prefer Paulettes but then again I am one of those murdering war mongers they talk about who served this country proudly in the Marine Corps, so I could care less if any of you take offense to my objections to your lack of objectivity.

[FastPlastic]

10:28 PM on 01/09/2012

Thank you for serving BiznessLady. I'm sorry we couldn't come to an agreement during our conversation.

[BiznessLady]

11:42 PM on 01/09/2012

Nice chatting with you

[Sean Kruz]

02:09 AM on 01/10/2012

FastPlastic... I served, too, U.S. Marine proudly.

BiznessLady does NOT represent the majority of Marines at all, however. Please note that.

Google >> Ron Paul USMC Support

God Bless America.

[Sean Kruz]

11:01 AM on 01/11/2012

"We all know people that had to get cheated on treated like crap or beat up before they got the message" - BiznessLady

How dare you make a shrewd comment like that!

It sounds #1 like you are advocating violence.

#2, is that not what Dr. Martin Luther King (one whom I greatly respect) talked about and also endured himself - and he condemned such violence? Oh yes! He was treated like crap, he was cheated on, stabbed, had rocks thrown at him, but he still DELIVERED the message!

USMC - For Dr. Ron Paul

[BiznessLady]

12:01 PM on 01/11/2012

You make no sense at all

[BiznessLady]

03:08 PM on 01/09/2012

No one here can speak for Ron Paul. He has not claimed responsibility for those newsletters, his responses have been all over the map. It is sickening to have people attempt to defend the indefensible.

There are times in everyone's life when they are so wrong all they can do is fall on their sword be humble and apologize and you know when they mean it. That takes character and integrity.

He did defend the content of those newsletters and I think it is just plain dumb of his supporters to not acknowledge that as fact and process it accordingly.

It is OK for you to say that you don't care about those newsletters if that is how you feel, just as it is OK for me to tell you that I don't accept his evolving stories about them and his unwillingness to accept more then a "Moral Responsibility" for their content.

Stop telling me how honest he is. Honesty does not equate with honor and respect. I read some very disrespectful passages in those newsletters and their wacky conspiracy theory, white supremacist, austrian economics, serial killer bent are nothing to be proud of and irrepresentative of anything I could ever endorse.

Now through all of that he is a likable man, I have some issues I agree with him on but I could never be "high" enough to endorse him as POTUS.

[FastPlastic]

05:00 PM on 01/09/2012

What is expected of him to say/do for you to accept his answer to this question?

[BiznessLady]

05:35 PM on 01/09/2012

He never admitting to LYING and being dishonest about those newsletters. He played the wordsmith and talked all around it w/o admitting it.

2. Who WROTE THEM and why they stopped?

If he didn't know the crap that was in them then why did he stop their production right before he started his campaign?

He never said, I wrote them or it doesn't matter who wrote them, I was wrong for letting this happen. I am sorry to all of those I have offended and i accept total responsibility.

You disavow something that you are not complicit in. Ron Paul's name and pocketbook was all n those newsletters, disavowing them is like saying we didn't have sex when you had some oral.

I was mad at him too but his apologies were for Hillary and I am sure he humbly did. Paul could take a cue from Byrd and Clinton and take out his teeth and have a big slice of humble pie.

[Toofanii]

01:25 AM on 01/10/2012

Your judging the man for 6 lines he didnt write 2o years ago, when he has defended the people of this contry from war and bankruptcy for 30 years. The man is brilliant, and the American people dont deserve him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM&feature=youtu.be

[Sean Kruz]

02:14 AM on 01/10/2012

Excellent insight!

[mp146]

03:07 AM on 01/10/2012

If he didn't write it why didn't he fire the person who wrote it, if it was not his opinion? specially that it was written in first person as RP? He made a lot of money on that newsletter.
You are right, we don't deserve him, he just should stop campaigning.

[paulmainor]

03:01 PM on 01/09/2012

Well now. Ron Paul is right about that. Sincere or not these issues must be addressed and corrected. Will the media pick up and stay on such a real issue? I doubt it.

[myrevolution]

11:28 AM on 01/09/2012

Anybody who believes Ron Paul wrote the newsletters has obvoisly never read anything from Ron Paul or watched his thousands of YouTube videos. Basically your mind is completely told what to think by the msm.

[karim banned]

03:02 PM on 01/09/2012

This is a clear evidence that the brainwashing of Americans is not done solely by Fox News.

All the media outlets, both on Left and Right do the same thing.
They will not tolerate a true anti-war candidate.

[karim banned]

03:02 PM on 01/09/2012

F&F

[myrevolution]

11:18 AM on 01/09/2012

It's already been confirmed that James b. Powell of forbes wrote the newsletters in question. Who cares about that Ron Paul is on prophet status:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meFjza6BpEA

[BiznessLady]

05:54 PM on 01/09/2012

you are kidding

[psychedelicspell]

09:45 AM on 01/09/2012

Another one talking out of both sides of his mouth because he is a racist.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/10-mind-blowingly-offensive-quotes-from-ron-paul-n

[FastPlastic]

03:26 PM on 01/09/2012

Look Up ^^^^