While doing my daily research I ran across the best source of documentation of Ron Paul’s unsavory beliefs and positions I have seen, supporting each claim with a link to a PDF scanned from one of Paul’s infamous newsletters. Furthermore, it covers far more that just Paul’s racism. Combining this information with the videos shown below make it clear that either Ron Paul is lying, or Ron Paul is lying with his conflicting attempts to cover this up.
For years, Ron Paul published a series of newsletters that dispensed political news and investment advice, but also routinely indulged in bigotry. Here’s a selection of some especially inflammatory passages, with links to scanned images of the original documents in which they appeared.
Race
“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “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. … 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.”
The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.
This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”
A February 1991 newsletter attacks “The X-Rated Martin Luther King.”
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,”and “Lazyopolis ” would be better alternatives—and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”
A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.
The January 1993 issue of the Survival Report worries about America’s “disappearing white majority.”
The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems,” and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter—presumably Paul—writes, “My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty.”
A March 1993 Survival Report describes Bill Clinton’s supposedly “illegitimate children, black and white: ‘woods colts’ in backwoods slang.”…
Inserted from <The National Review>
TNR goes on to cover Paul’s newsletter references to gays, survivalism and militias, conspiracies, the Middle East, anti-government paranoia, Jews, Pat Buchanan, and the authorship of the newsletter, so I urge you to click through and read the rest of it. You will be shocked!
Ed Schultz has more and interviews Dr. James Peterson.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel Maddow devoted two segments to the story. In the first she adds background and detail.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
In the second, she discusses Paul’s evasion of responsibility with Melissa-Harris Perry.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Here’s the final proof. Paul’s most recent defense is that he did not write the articles and did not even know they existed, until ten years later. Note that all the references above were written between 1990 and 1993. But Rachel documented that Paul was defending the content of these articles to a Dallas newspaper in 1995. Since 1995 was well within the ten year timeframe, Paul could not have defended the content at that time, if he didn’t know the articles existed, as he now claims. Ron Paul is lying. He is not fit to be dog catcher, let alone President of the United States.
19 Responses to “Racist Ron Paul Undone”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thank you so much for posting this – I saw these interviews and was interested in seeing them again. Paul’s refusal to acknowledge the racist remarks indicates to me that he harbors them still. About a month ago I was reprimanded (rightly so, perhaps) when I made the statement that all libertarians were racist – what I should have said and in thinking about it further is that the extreme isolationist position that libertarians take invite racism and supremacy, it would have been far better if Paul had said that those written comments were made decades ago, and that like the country he too has evolved and changed in his opinions on this subject – something that those of the older generations might more readily accept and relate to. Other problems I have with the libertarian party and at the same time I believe is making it so appealing – are more extreme stances it takes on other issues, like less government, at a time when we all are angry with it – don’t throw the baby out with the dishwater! We need the regulations and controls on corporations that would pollute and endanger the environment, and cannot trust self-policing in that regard. Economically speaking (my weakest link), again I tend to feel there is an attraction to his financial ideas, but do we want to get rid of the Federal Reserve altogether? This seems rather extreme to me, but it’s an area that I’m admittedly more ignorant in. Because of these reasons it makes me very wary of the Paul idolatry of the moment – and how precarious this “moment of history” is – since we’ve had a rise in fascism, a larger discrepancy in wealth (world-wide), movements like the Tea-party and OWS – clearly indicate the distrust and dissatisfaction in the country – and the desperation it finds itself – Paul is a dangerous candidate, IMHO
Lee, I would not paint all libertarians with the same brush, but you’re certainly correct that it would have been better for Paul to tell the truth. His ongoing denial is an indication that he still holds those views.
Racists, libertarians, Tea Cultitsts, Republicans, Right WIngers etc, are all in favor of dictatorial rule by the economic elites. They are all opposed to democracy. They may not goose-step, but they are marching us lock-step towards fascism.
At the polar opposite end of the spectrum, have a peaceful and Merry Christmas. Some of us need to advocate peace on Earth and good will towards men. We won’t see that from the Right.
Dave for the most part I agree, but I have known some Republicans and some Libertarians who are not like that. Republicans are trying to force them out.
Yikes!
Merry Christmas, Tomcat.
Thanks Ahab!
He’s not just racist. He’s paranoid.
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf
Merry Christmas, Tom. I hope 2012 finds you in better health.
Thanks, Leslie. Aren’t most racists that way?
Not often does one find “The National Review” cited as a source at a progressive website. But it certainly adds credence to the fact that Ron Paul is one bigoted, hate-mongering racist. After all, TNR knows their own kind.
Exactly, Nameless. Under normal circumstances, I would NEVER cite TNR, and would not have this time had they not had a scan to document every claim.
Ron Paul, like his son Rand, is a weird crackpot and a racist. Not only that, but at 76, he is too o;ld to be sent to the White House. These Libertarian types are much too impractical, anyway.
Thanks Jack. I agree,
If a newsletter goes out with your name on it (and no authors listed) you are responsible for what is written in the newsletter. Paul claims he did not know about what was in the newsletter, so why was he letting his name be used? If he did not write the articles and did not even read them it shows a significant lack of judgment at the very least.
I assume the newsletter was being sold. Was Ron Paul making money from the newsletter? If not Paul, who was?
Having lived in Texas for a time I can imagine such a racist newsletter was popular and increased Ron Paul’s appeal to certain groups. Unless he names the people who wrote the newsletter (if he didn’t) and who received money from it (if not him) he is responsible as far as I can see.
Welcome John. 🙂
It certainly would, but he was defending the articles in 1995, so the claim that it was ten years befor4e he knew about them has to be a lie.
You assume correctly.
I agree. Thanks for the local insight.
15/06/92 — “. . . hate Euro-American civilisation . . . Christian morality.”
June 92 — he paints all blacks as being on welfare and whites as being victims
June 93 — “. . . most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities . . . ”
June 93 — “. . . want a ‘New World Order'” . . . “we believe in the old American Republic.”
June 93 — “. . . we are the same under the skin, the argument goes. Whatever the truth of the assertions, . . . Whites don’t vote for candidates that promoye white interests, whereas blacks and hispanics do. . . ”
Paul referred to MLK Jr day as ‘hate whitey say’
In my opinion, these are quite indicting of his racist views. How on earth did he get past the vetting (I assume there is one) process to be a nominee for the Republican/Teabaggers? Oh right, there have been other,much less overt comments of a racist nature from some of the other candidates. It would seem that the GOP does not have a problem with these racist views. After all, look at what the Koch brothers tried to do in Wake County, North Carolina with busing and segregating schools again.
Ron Paul, given his racists and bigoted ways shouold be cut loose from the primaries. But what scares me as much if not more, is that there are people out there buying this bull, lock, stock and barrel! That is truly disturbing.
Lynn, as John said, he got past the vetting process in Texas, because racism is a plus in his district. Now, for the first time, there is actually a possibility that he might win a primary, before fading into oblivion where he belongs. This is the vetting process.
To the person calling himself David L. Your comment was not approved, not because you support Paul, but because you lied about your email address.
Ron Paul is a fuddy duddy left over old man– his son Rand is the more dangerous– Rand is colder– and more heartless-