You're absolutely right, though I go further and ask for release of the newsletters so voters can determine his views. Short of that, and given his failure to reject neonazi support, Republicans should both condemn and shun him. Before the Dems attempt to hang the racist/antisemite tag on the GOP. My post from one of the abovementioned threads.
-------------------
On top of the Willis Carto/American Free Press/Council of Conservative Citizens columns/Stormfront-David Duke support, this doesn’t surprise me at all, and personally I think an explanation of this and his 1992 “expose” of the fleet footed, politically foolish, largely criminal population of blacks living among us. Full newsletter article here
The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible.…
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows, black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.
Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be the major problem of the 1990s.
The good news, Paul (or someone) does correct predict the rise of a terror threat in the 1990s. Of course it’s the blacks and their ideology and culture, not the rational Islamists reacting to colonialization.
The Paul excuse is that though the article is signed by Ron Paul, and printed in the $50 per year Ron Paul Political Report, those aren’t his statistics and opinions, he didn’t actually write it, and apparently never read it.
The remedy, an apology, appropriate. A refusal to identify the individual Paul trusted with his name. IMO, unacceptable for a Presidential candidate. This individual was obviously close to Paul, given the years long gap between publication and discovery may reflect Paul’s views, and may well still be close to him. And a refusal to release other copies of the publication so the public can see just what Paul was advocating over those years. And yes, the link above, the only complete article from the newsletter was posted to usenet by a well known white supremacist.
These excerpts clearly address the issue of newsletter content. From a NYT magazine interview, The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement- Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul , earlier this year,
Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. 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. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.” Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his connections to the John Birch Society. “Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people. . . . ”
Paul’s ideological easygoingness is like a black hole that attracts the whole universe of individuals and groups who don’t recognize themselves in the politics they see on TV. To hang around with his impressively large crowd of supporters before and after the CNN debate in Manchester, N.H., in June, was to be showered with privately printed newsletters full of exclamation points and capital letters, scribbled-down U.R.L.’s for Web sites about the Free State Project, which aims to turn New Hampshire into a libertarian enclave, and copies of the cult DVD “America: Freedom to Fascism.”
It strikes me that a request to release the newsletters is perfectly reasonable, but in no way could be an attempt to paint him as an anti-Semite. Racist, I suppose you could make that charge, but why antisemite? Unless unbeknownst to the world they contained questionable antisemitic content.
All in all, an embarrassment for the Republican Party. Paul should make his newsletters public and name the author, else the charge that they were simply survivalist/white supremacist/militia garbage will stick. The GOP doesn’t need what Medved refers to as a candidate for neonazis in the race. Paul needs to clear these issues as best as he can.
The big problem lies in the fact that Ron Paul has aligned himself, and now his presidential campaign, with very objectionable persons and groups.........so, his comments on Blacks (and others) take on new meaning, a meaning that will be his political death knell..........