Posted on 06/09/2007 5:40:59 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column:
“Given the inefficiencies of what DC 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.”
“These aren’t my figures,” Paul said this week. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.
He also wrote: “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 continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.”
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html
Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.
He added, “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
Paul also asserted that “complex embezzling” is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” he wrote.
In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government’s U.S. lobbying efforts and reported allegations that President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimate children.
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.
Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation “would explain certain mysteries” about the president’s scratchy voice and insomnia.
“None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting,” he said.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
I don’t know if it is so much about (R) and (D) as the fact we have a 2 party system. Always have had one. Each party puts forward a candidate and you vote. More often than not, you vote for the least/worse candidate.
The comment I made to an Eagle Scout who is now a CAPT in the Army back in 2004 was that I thought the Republicans ran an extremely weak candidate in Bush and I was shocked that the Democrats were able to find an even weaker candidate in Kerry.
So if Dr. Paul is against Israel actually defending itself, but then says it would be able to mop the floor with Iran that makes him neutral?
Seems to me it makes him at best Israel-neutral in hypothetical situations but anti-Israel when the rubber hits the road.
Oh I agree pretty much. The Dems could walk away with it in ‘08 if they had a decent candidate. They don’t. (Thank God)
You cannot condemn a politician based on the views of his supporters. I imagine that neo-Nazis vote in America, but that does not make the person they support a Nazi, nor does it make a communist out of a democrat.
Ron Paul is not a “Truther”.
But John Gibson is an as*hole. Invite people on and scream at them — Great.
There is a tendency in America to distrust anything the Government says, and it’s not hard to figure out why.
If you won’t spill American blood for Israel, you MUST hate Jews. Nice argument.
Yes; now you’re a liberal moonbat if you’re against having a trillion-dollar foreign policy (defense + supplementals + intelligence + DOE + State Department + DHS, etc.).
90% of FReepers: “A strong executive is only a problem if there’s a Democrat in the White House.”
Ron Paul immediately fired the ghost writer who wrote those articles.
Somebody was writing his obscure newsletter for him in the early 1990s; when he saw what the guy wrote, he was fired.
Ron Paul has publicly acknowledged this and so have his opponents in Congressional Races.
Reference?
He just doesn’t want American Blood and treasure spilled for another nation’s foreign policy.
His statements are totally in-line with that view.
Did he immediately fire him in 1992 or did he immediately fire him in 1994?
Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.
He added, “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
Paul also asserted that “complex embezzling” is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” he wrote.
In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government’s U.S. lobbying efforts and reported allegations that President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimate children.
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.
Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation “would explain certain mysteries” about the president’s scratchy voice and insomnia.
“None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting,” he said.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
Paul fired them sometime between ‘1992 and 1996; don’t know when. He slapped his name on some rag and didn’t even hear about it until it became public.
Protecting oil trade is now in our national interest.
He can sit back and bellicose all day about how wonderful it would be to sit at home and ignore the rest of the world, while there are thousands of military personnel in danger all over the world protecting his ability to turn on a light switch or start his car.
The fact of the matter is, we are dependent upon free global trade, and you know, we have been since the beginning of our nation. All you need to do is read the history of the Marine Corps to realize that.
IMHO: he doesn’t live in the real world.
But they’ll be the first to b!tch and moan when a (D) “abuses” the so-called Patriot Act.
Ron Paul had a newsletter with his name on it, and you are telling me he didn’t read it?
And this is the man you want us to vote for to be President of the United States?
Think man!
Exactly. I bet they’ll be a bit upset when Hillary starts classifying pro-life protesters as “terrorists”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.