An Open Letter to Bridget about Ron Paul’s “Skeletons”
Hi Bridget,
I love you girlfriend, but you’re seriously drinking some DNC-controlled-media Kool-Aid when it comes to your take on Ron Paul. 
I’m serious…I think you’re a wonderful woman, I agree with you on 90% of the issues, and I think you’ve been had. You’ve been lied to. But we all have. I just have more incentive to research things about about Ron Paul than you do, or most readers of HillBuzz.org. And that’s why you don’t know the facts about the newsletters written by ghostwriters and published by a company under Ron Paul’s masthead over 20 years ago.
If you’re not a Ron Paul voter like me, you probably don’t know that Ron Paul scores highest among minorities in a head-to-head matchup against Barack Obama, according to the latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday. Ron Paul gets 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets only 15%.
H/T TheLibertyVoice.com
I’m also sure you haven’t read this Open Letter to the Media by a black man, who points out that even if Ron Paul actually believed everything written by the ghostwriters (which, clearly, he doesn’t),
Pursuing [Ron Paul's] platform of limited government against a hostile bipartisan congress will be hard enough, why would he use his 4 year stint to bring back Jim Crow? Does anyone realistically think he would try to reshape America into some postcard of the antebellum south with black people working in cotton fields and white masters in palatial mansions? Really? [...]
Despite anything Ron Paul could say or do in office he couldn’t use his mandate to change who we are. I have more faith in the American people. How quickly we forget that a majority of white people in America chose an unknown largely untested black man over a seasoned, white war hero in 2008. Four years is not enough time to fundamentally change who we are as a society. Americas political structure wouldn’t permit Ron to create a “Racist States of America”. Not within a 4 year term, even if he were 100% in favor of it.
You probably also didn’t read the commentary from Black Entertainment Television, which pointedly does not label Ron Paul as a bigot (which is what one might assume from BET.com). Instead, the writer notes,
“Paul has since come out and said he only lent his name to the newsletters, and that he never actually wrote the content in them. Business Insider suggests there’s reason to take him at his word on this one, but even if we do there’s still the case of Paul’s views on civil rights. To that I’d say that Paul is a true libertarian, and being a true libertarian means believing that the government shouldn’t have the right to meddle in people’s lives, regardless of whether those people hold abhorrent beliefs.
A lot can be said about Paul, but one thing you can’t say about him is that he’s an ideologically inconsistent politician who lies and changes his mind constantly in order to court votes. What’s sad about American politics is that this is somehow considered tremendously virtuous, and not just the status quo.”
So…let’s think about those ghostwritten newsletters for a minute.
You and I both have the ability to log into HillBuzz and write whatever we like, don’t we?
Has Kevin ever told either of us what we could or could not say?
Has he ever demanded that we censor ourselves, or write for or against any topic?
I can’t speak for you, of course, but I believe Kevin has given every HillBuzz contributor free reign to express ourselves, even when he strenuously disagrees with us.
Because the views of the contributors are not necessarily the views of Kevin DuJan.
But here’s the interesting wrinkle. Because I have administrative access, I can, at this very moment, post an article with ANY byline I choose. I could post under your name, my name, Kevin’s name, Megan Fox’s name…anybody’s. I could create a totally new author account and post under that name.
So let’s say I log in under NewtLove’s name and I put up a post that says “Hitler had the right idea” or some b*llsh*t like that, would that magically transform Newt into a Nazi? Would that actually change who Newt is or what he believes? Would Newt suddenly behave differently? Would he start goose-stepping his way through life? Of course not. Newt stays Newt.
This is basically what happened with Ron Paul’s newsletters. Dr. Paul got out of Congress, went back to running his OB/GYN practice full-time, and gave up day-to-day control of the company that published several different newsletters with his name in the masthead. There were several different newsletters, with a series of editors. And they were written by ghostwriters with an occasional article by Ron Paul thrown in the mix.
Here’s my take on the Ron Paul newsletters, as a professional ghostwriter. It explains how ghostwriting works, and why Ron Paul probably couldn’t ever publicly identify the ghostwriters involved, even if he knew who they were.
This non-controversy has been resurrected time and again by Dr. Paul’s political opponents, and debunked time and again. Here’s what Ron Paul had to say about it during the last election cycle:
And why has this story popped up again, two weeks before the Iowa Caucus? Well, Ron Paul is polling at #1 in Iowa, has the best campaign, a ton of money, and the most energized and loyal supporters.
And he’s been running an ad that points out Newt Gingrich’s serial flip-flopping pretty much non-stop on Iowa TV (it has almost a million views on YouTube as well.)
Newt Gingrich doesn’t have much money, and he has no ground game. And his support is weak. But he does have one ace up his sleeve…a hack writer and Cocktail Party GOP/John McCain supporter named James Kirchick, who’s a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C.
And guess who else is involved with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies? Why…Newt Gingrich. He sits on its Leadership Council.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies apparently lobbies heavily for Israel and against Iran…and since Ron Paul wants to cut all U.S. foreign aid (including that to Israel) and doesn’t want to bomb Iran into the stone age without a Congressional declaration of war, it puts Ron Paul at odds with the group, with Newt, and with Mr. Kirchick.
So, conveniently, just as Newt started to plummet in the Iowa polls, Kirchick re-ignited the non-controversy with The Company Ron Paul Keeps – Meet Alex Jones.
Ron Paul has never, not once, spoken a bigoted comment, or advocated a discriminatory policy. In fact, we libertarians don’t view people as members of groups. We judge people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. We see people as individuals. Libertarianism and collectivism (racism, sexism) are polar opposites.
If there was ANY audio or video of Ron Paul–oh, I don’t know–calling Barack Obama “clean and articulate” for a black guy (like Joe Biden) or saying Barack Obama is appealing because he’s a light-skinned black who can switch in and out of black dialect at will (like Harry Reid), don’t you think we would have heard it by now?
Let’s contrast Ron Paul’s views on racism with these choice comments by DNC-media darling The Reverend Al Sharpton, in a speech at King’s College:
“White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”
Wow! Racism AND homophobia in one sentence. Way to go, Reverend Al!
Later in the same speech, Reverend Al gave some background on America’s founders, whom he described as “the worst criminals, the rejects they sent from Europe and sent them to the colonies.”…“So [if] some cracker,” he continued, “come and tell you ‘Well my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold you pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of, that means their forefathers was crooks.”
So, my 13-year-old ancestor, Mary Chilton, was a “crook” who was “sent” here? Gosh, I thought the Pilgrims came here because they were fleeing religious persecution. I guess that shows you what I know about my own family tree!
This is what real-live racism smells like, Bridget. This is the real deal in all its disgusting “glory.”
But because he’s a Democrat–and a liberal one at that–a real live in-your-face, caught-on-video racist like Al Sharpton doesn’t just get a free pass from the media…he gets his own TV show on MSNBC!
That’s right…if you’re a Republican, you can be accused of RAAAAAACISM and anti-Semitism and burned at the stake by the DNC-controlled media for words you didn’t even say and don’t believe…despite a complete lack of evidence…despite the fact that your heroes are Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, and Jewish economists Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises and despite a 35 year track record of voting against racism and collectivism in all its forms.
But if you’re an authentic, confirmed, proven, on-the-record Jew-hating, cracker-hating racist whose words caused a riot that killed a few people in a Jewish-owned clothing store in Brooklyn, you get your own TV show.
I have some serious questions for you, Bridget.
Are you really going to allow yourself to be manipulated by the same DNC-controlled media who destroyed Sarah Palin’s character because she “could see Russia from her house?”
Are you going to believe the same DNC-controlled media who smeared Newt Gingrich by reporting that he “served his dying wife divorce papers in her hospital bed?”
Are you going to believe the same DNC-controlled media who took down Herman Cain with completely manufactured charges of “sexual harassment?”
Are you going to believe the same DNC-controlled media who claimed that Kevin DuJan was “rigging the votes for Bristol Palin” on Dancing With the Stars?
If there was any video or audio of Ron Paul saying anything even remotely questionable, don’t you think it would be starring in a Mittens Romney commercial already? Don’t you think you would have seen it in any of Ron Paul’s 12 congressional campaigns or his two previous presidential campaigns? He has been elected to office 12 times from a district that is approaching 40% minority population.
Do you think a district that’s nearly 40% minority would elect Ron Paul to Congress 12 times if they thought he was a racist?
Bridget, if you think Ron Paul is a racist, it’s because you’ve been played, and the DNC-controlled media and Cocktail Party GOP are counting on the fact that you won’t make any effort to discover the truth for yourself.
I respectfully request that you examine the links I’ve provided and look at this smear campaign with an open mind.
Very sincerely,
Kathleen
© 2011, Kathleen4HB. All rights reserved.
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
Wow, you guys are really going to have to break up with all the drama.
Seriously, in '08 I was dating an Obamabot and we thought we could make it work, but there was no way. Especially once his guy won and he realized that I was going to end up right. He didn't want to hear, "I told you so." We split and it is unregrettable, if that is a word. I'd do it all the same way again.
The "ghost writing" excuse doesn't work.
Ron Paul, in 1995, seemed to know exactly what was going on:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/22/paul-in-199…
In fact, this has to be one of the worst defences I've ever seen. Even if something is ghost-written, it is still the responsibility of the person whose name they're using. We still hold politicians responsible for speeches they have not written, after all. We hold Andrew Sullivan responsible for what appears on his blog, even though he's admitted he uses ghost writers.
The difference between Paul's newsletters and Hillbuzz is that it's very clear who's writing in Hillbuzz. No one assumes that these are Kevin's views because no one is pretending to be Paul. At the very best, Paul is too lazy to keep an eye on what people are writing in his own name.
Was Paul speaking about the Ron Paul Investment Letter or the Ron Paul Political Report?
As I have mentioned I never paid more than cursory attention to Ron Paul over the years despite co-hosting a conservative drive time Chicago talk radio show for years. The host was a huge Ron Paul supporter as were a lot of callers. It was not until recently, when we interviewed an author about the Federal Reserve that I took a legitimate dive into the Ron Paul and came away beyond impressed with his knowledge of economics and enlightened position on the Federal Reserve.
I'll admit I had a bias, almost every single Ron Paul supporter I knew are frequent users of marijuana and seemed to center there support for him around that singular issue. Interestingly I researched Ron Paul’s position on that several years ago and found little in his comments over the years to indicate he was ACTIVELY pursuing the legalization of marijuana; in fact it was that point that made me suspect a lot of his followers were nut jobs who simply projected their desires on Ron Paul and made him a champion of causes he may not actually agree with.
All this being said, I have examined the positions of the other candidates for the GOP, and to a person they ALL favor some for of extra-curricular (read that as in violation of the Constitution) activity. One of the most shocking was Michele Bachman, in one sentence she stated she was the constitutional conservative in the race and then went on to explain how she would violate the Constitution.
So cutting through the chaff, it comes down to this, Ron Paul apparently has pledged his fidelity to the Constitution through his acts and his words. I think you can learn a lot about a man by examining his children. He obviously instilled a love of country, God, and the Constitution in Rand Paul.
And the measure of racism is not how you label people but how you utilize the labels. Ron Paul is apparently a civil libertarian, the idea that he is a racist in terms of negatively impacting the xyz group is absurd. Of all the current candidates he has the most positive support from people of color of any candidate in the race (based on callers to our radio program).
If you want to run Ron Paul down, go right ahead, I have no vested interest in his candidacy. But realize what you are selecting in his stead – an anti-Constitutional candidate.
Have been reading HillBuzz for a long time, practically since day one. But its current incarnation as the All Ron Paul All the TIme site keeps me from visiting as often as I normally would. Well-written though the Paul pieces are, I really just want HillBuzz back. Where's Patty Melt? Panda? The humor? For Pete's sake, it's Christmas and the election is eleven months away … give it a rest already.
If this is 86-ed from comments, guess I'll know who's manning the moderation desk.
I don't really care about most of the stuff written here cause its unimportant to me in what I consider relevant data. Do I think he's a racist? No. I think the injury is a much different kind and everyone is barking up the wrong tree.
What I consider very important is what you lend your name to, you better have someone to watch over what is going on when you give up day to day operations. Either he had incompetent people watching over work done with his name attached or he was negligent in keeping himself in a positive light by letting all this work come out which made him appear in a negative way. Either way its a severe lack of oversight.
Kathleen, if you have to compare Ron Paul to Al Sharpton, you may have already lost. As Larry the Cable Guy might say: "Here's your sign." While the liberal Democrat media certainly likes Ron Paul's "enemies, what enemies?" brand of foreign policy, don't delude yourself into thinking this cozy media relationship with Ron Paul is going to last.
Black Entertainment Television is going to revise their opinion of Ron Paul approximately five nanoseconds after he gets enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination., and Barack Obama is going to have a billion dollars to spend making ads that quote Ron Paul's newsletter. And because the byline on those words IS Ron Paul's, he's totally sunk.
You're right on the substance of Ron Paul. I don't think he has a racist bone in his body. But were talking about a political machine that took Herman Cain down with unproven allegations of completely legal conduct (an affair) along with ridiculous stories about "uncomfortable non-sexual behavior." Articles with Ron Paul's bylines that say 95% of blacks are criminal or semi-criminal is the political equivalent of seppuku.
In politics, perception is often reality. Ron Paul, if nominated, isn't going to spend any of his time attacking Obama, he's more likely to keep spouting off about Iran having nukes not being a big deal and how the Fed is a morally (and fiscally) bankrupt institution. I'll still vote for him because anything is better than Obama, but lets be real here. Joe Moron bussed in by the Democratic Party is never going to vote for Ron Paul, no matter how high he scores with minorities in 12 TX.
HillBuzz, you have lost me. Where is Kevin? Where is the common sense? I didn't know this was a Ron Paul site. You are off my favorites list.
Ron Paul Covered Up Newsletters For Political Reasons – He defended them during a campaign, because he felt he couldn't tell the truth. So he's not above misleading in order to play politics. So he may not be a racist, but he is a lying, deceiving politician. You can't have it both ways. Your only two options are racist or deceiving misleading politician. Which ya gonna take?
Bye bye Mr. pure and Mr. non-politician. —Documented proof at that link–> http://bit.ly/vSscFl
Enough of this Ron Paul-ization of "HillBuzz". If Ms. Gee wants to support Ron Paul, my blessings to her – on her OWN site. I am getting tired of HB being used as a tool of indoctrination for one candidate instead of enlightenment for all. If this continues, I will take myself elsewhere.
We don't have to have a PhD in Rocket scinces to know Ron and Rand Paul are RACISTS. These two WHITE MEN have said that the Civil Right Act was a mistake, not neccesary and that attempted against liberties.
There are too many hints that confirm Ron Paul is a creepy racist. And old whacko earning his salary on fraudulent party affiliation. Endorsed by racist organizations and web site like "Obambi" and others.
I have to say that I haven't been visiting here so often because I'm tired of hearing about RonPaul, RonPaul, RonPaul aaaaalllll the time.
Well in defense of Kathleen, for a while this use to be the Sarah Palin is our savior worship site.. Kevin had me 1/2 convinced she was entering the race.
And frankly we would not even be having this discussion about Ron Paul if there was a credible conservative Republican in the race and Palin could have nominated/elevated one long ago. But she did not now did she? So we have the ascendency of Ron Paul, a libertarian, running under the Republican banner. All Sarah had to do was get behind Bachman, Santorum, Cain, or even Perry and Ron Paul would be just a large, temporary blip on the radar. But that is not what we have, is it, because the vote is being divided up with 4, 6, 8% here and there, and a lot of it has fallen to Ron Paul, because he is essentially the most Constitutionally conservative candidate running. And rnainly that is the fault of folks like Kevin and myself who were actively promoting Palin; we let her take all the air out of the other candidates and ended up with nothing but a gaping sense of loss in the conservative base that prevented conservatives from rallying around other options and making them viable because no one measures up to Sarah in terms of charisma (except the now defunct Herman Cain).
So we could stop the Ron Paul topics and get back to how the goddess Sarah will save us all(and by the way I was a Palin and Cain supporter) but that will be a little like counting fairies dancing on pinheads would it not?
Some simple advice, if you don’t want to hear about Ron Paul don’t read Kathleen’s posts; simple enough.
There is only one Savior…and his birthday is coming up in a few days.
Governor Palin had a chance to answer a clear and direct call that millions of Americans put out for her to lead and to fight for our country; the Governor chose not to answer that call.
I respect her decision but believe she made the wrong choice. She would have made an excellent President; she had the opportunity to be President with the 2012 election; she has most likely missed her window and will not be President because of this.
But I do not regret a single moment of encouraging Governor Palin to run; I would have kicked myself every day for the rest of my life if I would have thought there was anything I could have done to convince her to run and I didn’t do it.
Everyone must respect her choice though we are all entitled to be profoundly disappointed by it.
I will always wish her nothing but the best in all that she does but no longer think she will ever be our President.
There is only one Savior…and his birthday is coming up in a few days
HIS birthday. Amen Kevin.
Kevin more or less correctly writes:
There is only one Savior…and his birthday is coming up in a few days.
I'll apologize given the time of the year etc. Not being a Bremen of the Christian faith, I often forget how words like I used may hurt people of faith. I am truly sorry about my choice of words.
As for Sarah, she was my darling and still remains that. I am disappointed she did not run, but it does not alter my thoughts above. Her ascendency made potentially viable alternatives seem anything but, as they want by comparison. She would have been taking a huge political risk by backing someone and then having them fail, but her reluctance to do so has created conservative leadership vacuum and thus the factioning we have, apparently, to the detriment of the country (so it appears).
Kindest regards…
.
Izzy,
Your point about the damage done by Governor Palin not officially declining a run is a good one. I never thought of that before. I have been thinking about it since I read it and wonder what would have happening if she’d flat-out-declined to run much sooner. It’s a very provocative thought, but I bet Perry would be doing much better right now and that Chris Christie would be in the race too.
I will have to think more on this, but you are right that her decision to delay an announcement did hurt the process in ways she did not intend or foresee. Very astute observation.
Kevin, thanks for the Kudos. Your passion really had me believing her entry was inevitable. And of course being a big mouth with a microphone I was trumpeting her all up and down the radio dial – LOL.
And of course I have zero ill will regarding the luscious Sarah Palin. She will always epitomize the feminine ideal to me. I believe her intentions to be sincere, just now and then we all leave a wake of unintended consequences on our journey through life.
Merry Christmas to you Kevin and to all…
"And there were in the same country shepherds, abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them! And they were sore afraid … And the angel said unto them, "Fear not! For, behold, I bring you tidings o great joy, which shall be to all my people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ, the Lord."
"And this shall be a sign unto you: Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." And suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the Heavenly Host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth peace, and good will toward men."
"That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown." – Linus Van Pelt
– reference to Luke 8 – 14 King James Version.
The mainstream media has been smearing the American taxpayer as racist for the past 5 years whenever they complain about the debt slavery imposed on them by the tax predator ruling class.
Now establishment Republicans threatened by Paul's rising polls employ this tactic against him, digging up 20 year old newsletters written by a deranged associate.
What makes you think more Iowans won't vote FOR Ron Paul if you call him a racist? "Racist" now means someone opposed to the the establishment. The same establishment that rounds up poor black kids eve day and sells them to educrat cartels for Democratic Party campaign contributions.
Racist these days means anyone who is not a pro-NWO, pro-warwonger or someone who does not agree with Obama 100%.
Even if everything you say is true, it begs the question why he would be so lacking in forethought and personal responsibility as to sign over rights to use his name for publication purposes and not maintain even a modicum of control over the content. It also leaves me questioning his personal judgment in choice of who would oversee these publications to begin with. Realistically, what can I expect from such a candidate once he's elected to office? Many of us questioned the decisions and associations of BO before he became President (and with good reaon). We've got to do the same with each of our potential candidates, as well. We can't just blow them off as no big deal. This shows a significant lack in judgment, if you ask me.
Ron Paul accused of "raaaaaacism" for allowing THIS to be published in his name ?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dLraW1pPL1pNW…
LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM
The Ron Paul Political Report, 1992
The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural, political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality.
Ten thousand stores and other buildings looted and burned, thousands beaten and otherwise seriously injured, 52 people dead. That was the toll of the Los Angeles riots in which we saw white men pulled from their cars and trucks and shot or brutally beaten. (In every case, the mob was not too enraged to pick the victim's pocket.) We saw Korean and white stores targeted by the mob because they "exploited the community," i.e., sold products people wanted at prices they were willing to pay.Worst of all, we saw the total breakdown of law enforcement, as black and white liberal public officials had the cops and troops disarmed in the face of criminal anarchy.
In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert, the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist. The police were allowed to intervene only when the rioters assaulted the famous Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels atop Nob Hill. A friend of Burt's, a jewelry store owner, had his store on Union Square looted by blacks, and when the police arrived in response to his frantic calls, their orders were to protect his life, but not to interfere with the rioting.
Even though the riots were aimed at whites (in L.A. at Koreans who had committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians in Long Beach), and even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of the civil rights of whites or Asians.
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. Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman, the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.
But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is "Eurocentric." They demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks understanding it.
The insurrectionist and revolutionaries intended to destroy large sections of Los Angeles. Why did the ghetto youths so furiously rage together? Was it because they have been neglected? Hardly. Welfare has transferred $2.5 trillion from white middle class taxpayers to welfare programs in the last 30 years. And if we adjust that figure for 1992 dollars, the total is more like $7 trillion. Are blacks being denied economic opportunity? The cities could have freer markets, but so could the rest of the country, where there is no rioting and little street crime. Are black killers and looters responding to racism? Japanese Americans were treated far worse in California than blacks. They were even put in concentration camps by Earl Warren, John J. McCloy, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, yet Japanese-Americans have never rioted. Korean-Americans, hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive people in America (the reason for black hatred).
The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.
Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones.
The rioters said they were acting out their frustration over the acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when arresting Rodney G. King, but in fact, they were looking for an excuse to kill, burn, and loot. Nonetheless, it is important to understand why the jury decided not to convict, whether or not we agree with their verdict.
The California highway patrol began chasing drunk driver Rodney King, a black man with a long arrest record, and his two passengers on the night of March 3, 1991. He was recklessly driving at speeds up to 115 mph for almost eight miles. They raced on the highway until King turned off to drive through traffic lights and stop signs on residential streets (families could have been killed). The L. A. police department came to assist in the high-speed chase with lights and sirens on. One of King's passengers asked him to pull over. King initially refused, driving faster, but he finally complied. When the cops approached the car, suspecting armed criminals, the two black passengers immediately stepped out of the car and fell flat on their stomachs with arms stretched out, as instructed. They were handcuffed. King could have done the same. But he chose a different route. He refused to get out of the car. He stalled for a minute, and several times, stepped out of the car and then back into it. The police wondered if he was searching the car for a gun. Once King stopped this game, he was told by cops with guns pointing at him to put his belly down on the ground with arms outstretched. Instead, King began to do a crazy dance and laugh freakishly. He taunted the police and even the helicopter buzzing above him. This is why the police thought he was on PCP.
Despite police orders, King continued to dance, grabbing his buttocks to make lewd gestures at a female cop. Sgt. Koon approached him and warned that he would be stung with a Taser gun. King got down on his hands and knees, but refused to lay flat. He was again warned, but King refused. Officer Powell put his knee on King's back to get him down on the ground so he could be handcuffed. King went down to the ground, but bounced back up, shaking off all the police who were trying to get hold of him. Finally, Koon stung him with the gun, delivering 50,000 volts of electricity, and King fell to the ground again. But again he bounced up, prompting Koon to deliver another 50,000 volts. King fell again, this time into the proper position. Not a single baton blow had been delivered and the cops thought everything was over.
At this point, the video camera started to tape the action. Officer Powell approached King to put handcuffs on him, but King, weighing 250 pounds and standing 6'4" tall, shocked everyone by springing into action again from his flat position. Like a professional linebacker, he charged Powell, who thought King was going for his gun. That's when Powell started using the baton. At one point, Powell thought King was subdued, put away the baton and reached for the cuffs. But King started to stand up again. Remembering how King rushed him before, he put away his cuffs and brought out the baton again. One officer even tried to put his foot on King's neck to prevent him from getting up again so he could be cuffed.
In all, he was hit 56 times, and even in the end he refused to comply. He had to be cuffed in an odd position that risked the lives of the cops. The hospital reported that King had suffered an injury on the face from when he fell to the ground and minor injuries to his leg. He was never hit on the spine or the head, which would have violated regulations. And he was not beaten nearly to death, as some have claimed. The jury concluded that at every point of that night's action, King was in control. He could have complied at any time and stopped the beating. Whether we agree or disagree with the juries verdict–that the cops did not use excessive force –it is instructive to know what they saw and what the media still refuses to tell us or show us. None of the major networks showed the video scene when King rushed Officer Powell after the first Taser jolt. Only CNN showed it, one time. And no major paper even mentioned it. Neither did any major paper or network tell of the two passengers who complied and were peacefully arrested. Why? We were shown the section of tape where the cops hit King as a metaphor for white racism. Shown it again and again, we were supposed to feel guilty.
Not long after this incident, King was found trying to pick up a transvestite prostitute, and when caught, tried to run over the cops who intervened. He was not arrested. This was not reported outside of L. A. He was also not jailed for violating his parole (for armed robbery) or for drunk and reckless driving or for violently resisting arrest. The verdict was handed down at 3:15pm on April 29.
For weeks we had heard threats that the blacks would riot if the officers were not convicted. Taking that into account, did the media or politicians defer to the jury (as they do when a liberal-approved criminal is released)? Not at all. At 5:10 pm, liberal black L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley said he was shocked and outraged at the verdict. He denounced the jurors for approving "the senseless and brutal beating of a helpless man." As an afterthought, he asked the city to "remain calm." With those words, he might as well have thrown a match into a pool of gasoline. It was permission for the blacks to "express their rage."
Ten minutes later, the police got their first report of trouble. Blacks were throwing beer cans at passing cars. When the police showed up, the crowds had gotten much bigger. Cops tried to control them, but realized they were outnumbered. Realizing that they could not use their guns or even look cross-eyed at a black, a video recorded a policeman saying: "It's not worth it. Let's go." Indeed it wasn't worth it. The cops could only have put themselves on trial and had their lives ruined too.
Ironically, they were being filmed and are now denounced. But it was the Establishment's reaction to the Rodney King verdict that set the precedent that black criminals always have the benefit of the doubt over white police. At 5:45, the field commander in the area where the riots began ordered that no police go into the area. "I want everybody out of here. Get out. Now." He wanted to protect his police force, which could take no action without media criticism and legal action, from rioters who vastly outnumbered them and were sometimes better armed. The blacks started to attack cars driven by whites and light-skinned Hispanics with crowbars, rocks, bottles, and even a metal traffic sign. At the last minute, some police officers rescued a woman abandoned in her car and were pelted by rocks as they left.
At 6:45, a white man was dragged from a delivery truck and thrown to the ground and beaten, as black assailants yelled, "That's how Rodney King felt, white boy!" Another white truck driver, Reginald O. Denny, pulled into the area and five blacks beat him nearly to death. One threw a fire extinguisher at his head as he lay unconscious, breaking nearly every bone in his face. A white boy was pulled from his motorcycle and shot in the head. All this happened less than an hour and a half after the mayor had denounced the verdict. Rather than call for even minimal standards of justice, the Establishment coalesced into its excuse-making mode, justifying black terrorism in various ways. It was caused by poverty, frustration, "12 years of neglect," etc., but never evil. The fires burned out of control as firemen were attacked by the rioters as well, in one case with an axe.
All banks within the vicinity of rioting, meaning nearly all of central L.A., were immediately shut down. People who wanted to cash checks or make deposits were shocked to find them closed. They were also stunned to find city transit not running. Taxicabs were nowhere in sight. White people found themselves walking alone many blocks to get home, running the minefield of black gangs out for their blood.
Many people tried to buy guns to protect themselves. But, whoops, California has a 14-day waiting period. And then, just to make sure honest Californians could not get ammunition for the firearms they already owned (poor rage-filled youth might be shot), Mayor Tom Bradley ordered all gun and ammo shops closed, a great help to criminals, who had stocked up earlier, or who could simply break in and loot.
Another group that had stocked up were Korean merchants, many of whom defended their places with guns, and later were arrested for illegal use of firearms. As one told the L.A. Times, "Two looters entered my store; one left." These Korean immigrants were the only people to act like real Americans, mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England. White reporters and photographers who entered the riot zone were dragged from their cars and beaten. A freelance reporter for the Boston Globe was shot five times. The anti-white hate crimes accumulated.
In the midst of the rioting, Jesse Jackson and Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) spouted the pro-terrorist line that it was all justified because blacks "can't get no justice." The newsmen of the major networks interviewed them and lovingly bemoaned the "plight of the inner-city youth."
Liberal statist Jack Kemp weighed in with a victimological line similar to Jackson's, saying we need more federal programs for the cities. As the Establishment promised to spread more white taxpayers' money around the inner city, the killers and looters spread their violence to Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Fairfax, and Westwood. A mall in Compton burned.
The Violence wasn't limited to the L.A. area. It extended to Long Beach, Cal. (where more than 500 Cambodian-owned businesses were torched); Seattle, Wash.; Eugene, Ore.; San Francisco, Cal.; San Jose, Cal.; Las Vegas, Nev. (where it still lingers); Madison, Wis.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Atlanta, Ga. Terrorism swept America. In Las Vegas, for example, a white man was pulled out of his car and severely beaten by blacks breaking up from an anti-white rally at l0:30 pm. The blacks shouted racial insults as the police carted him away to the hospital. The crowd then pelted SWAT teams in armored vehicles with rocks and bottles. Someone in the crowd of blacks shot a gun and the police responded with tear gas. I'm sure that there were many more incidents of looting, fires, and violence that we haven't heard about for the simple fact that the media doesn't want us to know about them. Newsmen and editors are protecting us from the truth.
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. The "poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries)–and then complained about slow service. What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.
Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would have been blacks on the King jury –if the NAACP hadn't engaged in jury tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty to convict the cops. The blacks admitted this to defense lawyers, and were rightly excluded from jury. This is a serious crime, but the NAACP will not be prosecuted.
Imagine the irony. Blacks have whined endlessly that letting the cops off was "all white" (even though the jury included an Hispanic and an Asian). But it was the leading "civil rights" organization that is at fault for this.