Ron Paul Responds to Ryan Sager
David Weigel | May 22, 2007, 10:23am
Reason contributor and
The Elephant in the Room author Ryan Sager
has gone after Ron Paul for this mid-1990s quote,
originally dug up by a rival campaign in 1996.
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.
Sager wrote that "focusing on the 'negative,' 'powerful' Israel lobby—above and beyond any other lobby—counts as a form of anti-Semitism. It's not even a close call." At a media availability this morning (thanks to the
American Spectator), I read that quote to Paul and asked him to explain what he meant and whether he stood by it.
I'd have to have you show to me that I wrote it because that doesn't sound like my language, and in campaigns, some things get into newspapers that aren't actually correct. But I wouldn't back away from saying that AIPAC is very influential in our political process. That's a little bit different than saying the Israeli government, but I think that the Israeli position is very influential, which is very interesting because some of you may have seen this—just recently, there was an article out that studied which groups of people were most opposed to the Iraq War. And the assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the war. Yet the group that is most opposed to the Iraq War are the American Jews. Seventy-seven percent are now opposed to the war, which is a powerful message.
It reminds me of the AMA. The AMA doesn't protect me as a doctor who believes in free market medicine. They don't represent the grassroots. I don't think AIPAC represents the Jewish community. If I say some things in this country, it could be exactly what the [Labor Party]* in Israel says, and they would agree with me. But over here you get these kind of challenges, insinuated with, you know, "he's anti-Semitic" and all these things. But I'm pro-Constitution, and that's the foreign policy I talk about.
There were some things in a newsletter that wasn't actually written by me, so sometimes that gets a bit of distortion. I think the most important thing is what my views are and as a matter of fact I think our whole foreign policy is not helpful to Israel. It's actually ultimately very damaging to Israel. We restrict Israel, we're more likely to come in and tell them they can't do this, they can't do that. Israel has made overtures to Syria, which is great, and yet we've told them "don't talk to Syria or we'll cut off your money." It's that kind of stuff. I think the image that the Arabs and Muslims are all controlled by Osama bin Laden is absolutely erroneous. Israel and Egypt came to terms. I think ultimately we stir the pot and it's very harmful to Israel.
Sean Higgins of
Investor's Business Daily followed up to ask what Paul meant when he said AIPAC "controls the votes" and whether they're "influential to the bad or influential to the good."
I think it depends on the issue. I remember one time in the early '80s they were influential because the United States and the United Nations was condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's nuclear site. I believe that was the issue, or it was an issue like that, but I was one of the very few that said Israel has every right in the world to do what is necessary for their national sovereignty. On an issue like that they were right. On an issue like Iran, I don't think it's in their interests and I don't think it's in our interests. There's a lot of Jews in Israel who agree and I'd bet you there are a lot of Jews in this country that would agree that taking on Iran right now—I can't think of anything more absurd. And the idea that we wouldn't even take off the table a nuclear first strike on Iran who is incapable of attacking us. If they want me to vote to go to war against Iran, that would be be bad. If they want me to defend Israel's position of defending their borders and doing what's in their best interest, I'd say that's good.
*Paul said "Liberal Party" but he was clearly talking about Labor.
Pregnant lesbian sex | May 22, 2007, 12:26pm | #
Here's more:
"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."
---------------------------------------
This was right after the LA Riots, where emotions were understandibly high, but
Am I a racist for basically agreeing with him?
Pregnant lesbian sex | May 22, 2007, 4:37pm | #
"I doubt in those situations that the laws are going to really make people rethink their racism because they're so grateful to meet the new people."
Right, exactly. And here we get to the limitaions of the law, and what it can do.
I should of qualified my statements a bit more by saying that interaction, some facilitated by laws,
over time and through prolonged periods of interaction help to slowly break down racial barriers. In fact, this is probably only partially true if at all, because simple proximity is not interaction. (e.g. you may have tons of black kids that attend your school and never interact with them.)
Thus, the law cannot adress voluntary segregation, esp. voluntary cultural segegration. Blacks and whites in this country have evolved along completely different cultural paths, with different tastes in music, different outlooks, different manners of speaking.
I think it's the cultural common ground that has helped bring more blacks and whites together, more than any law has. Music, dance food, common hardship. Music in particular.
It's funny how when music, particularly jazz, was helping to bring black and white together, the music started changing to more polar sub-genres, like hip-hop and hard-rock/heavy metal, both offshoots of jazz/blues.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
