The Ron Paul Racist Newsletter Roundup…Circa 2008

By  | 

Lots of talk recently about Ron Paul’s newsletters. But, as some of you may remember, we covered this ground a LONG time ago.

In fact, the first mention of it was back in August 2007 in a post I wrote called Being Realistic On Ron Paul, where I called upon his supporters to answer 7 questions about the congressman, one of which was about the newsletters.

At that time, a lot of his supporters had dug into the situation and had become convinced there was really nothing there because Ron Paul hadn’t written them.

I disagreed. Strongly.

Here are the posts I wrote back then…

  1. Ron Paul Realism: Question 6 of 7: What about those racist writings in his newsletter?
  2. Why All The Surprised Faces?
  3. Ron Paul Talks About Racist Newsletters
  4. Is The Ron Paul Movement Over?
  5. Ron Paul’s Newsletters Authored By Lew Rockwell

That last story about Lew Rockwell…yeah, read that one. Because it’s the most telling of how the racist newsletter saga played out back in 2008 and should speak volumes about why it’s popping up again. In short, Ron Paul (or his campaign) was playing fast and loose with the truth.

Regardless…now it’s 2011…and guess what? The newsletters are baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

From The New Republic (who did the original reporting back in the day):

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.


“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.”

It’s all there and it’s all completely and utterly damaging. Ron Paul will never be President. Ever.

And so it goes…

  • Ben Farmer

    Texas NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment. I’ll take the NAACP President’s word for it.


  • cranky critter

    Wow.Playing fast and loose with the truth. So that puts Paul where exactly? On par with the other candidates?

    Unless I’ve got reason to think Paul believes this stuff, it appears less damning to me than you are insisting. And I betcha plenty of the GP sees it that way. I don’t think he’ll win either, but I don’t think these old stories are going to sink him.

  • Shane

    It’s all there and it’s all completely and utterly damaging

    Hyperbole – what’s journalism without it?

    This needs to be out there and needs to be discussed so everyone can make their own mind on such things.

    When we looked at this in 2008, I looked for some evidence of the candidate’s position on racism. I found links like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br_3bCc6tUQ) that I found to be consistent with the candidate’s position as I had understood it. It includes his comments on Rosa Parks, MLK and the systemic racism in our justice system.

    I realize that others will accept what people write about Paul over his own words and such skepticism is healthy with regards to our elected officials. Voters will need to weigh this against Newt’s ethical question both in and out of the office, Romney’s previous positions and use of wealth, Perry’s hunting lodge name, religious views and … um…. what was the third thing?….sorry, can’t remember.

    The GOP has some tough sledding this year.

    Merry Christmas to all my fellow Donk commenters!

  • Tully

    Put me in the Cranky camp. There is less here than appears.

    But what IS telling is that it was done in his name under his authorized imprint and he patently was not paying attention, which to me is not a “plus” recommendation for someone who wants to run things. Any kind of things. If you want to lead, demonstrate responsible leadership.

  • cranky critter

    Yup, Tully, I’ll second that. Failure to mind his own store. It’s among a number of aspects to Paul that add up to “not quite presidential caliber.”

    Shane, it’s one thing to “put it out there.”

    It’s another thing to decisively frame it as you have, which is not journalism, its editorializing,

    And it’s yet another thing to blatantly editorialize, and then when you’re called on it, you turn tail and hide behind “I am just a journalist putting important stuff out there.”

  • Shane


    I think something was lost in translation, or I don’t understand your post. I tried to use a quote tag for the first line – quoting Justin’s post. The first line of my comment was a quote from one of Justin’s last. i,e : “It’s all there and it’s all completely and utterly damaging”

    We will see how true this plays out – I think it is hyperbole in that there are so very few things that are truly damaging in politics anymore. I also don’t want the discussion to be minimized, because I want our presidential candidates vetted.

    To be clear, I don’t find Ron Paul to be a racist at all. I think the video clip shows a differently thinking politician about how we see racism. The youtube title seems to be sarcasm, because I don’t see his guilt from the clip. His discussion on individualism versus collectivism is one of the clearest explanation of what racism is and it does quite a bit to show why grouping people on physical, ethical, even religious traits denies their individual qualities and the ability to judge each person as an individual.

    To also be clear, it is difficult to understand this position, especially when combined with his (and through some extension his son’s) comments on the civil rights act of 1964. I despise racism as I do, but I can also disagree with federal legislation on the topic or laws against hate speech. That is a difficult position to understand, but remarkably consistent with his other beliefs. From my perspective, the candidate doesn’t sound like he is a racist. Lack of oversight is appropriate criticism here.

    To your final comment regarding editorializing vs journalism. I will concede your point wholeheartedly. I have not taken up journalism with my commentary, it is (and will likely always be) opinion and editorial.

  • cranky critter

    Shane, I didn’t realize your first line was quoting Justin. Justin’s quote seems well off the mark to me.

    Justin’s quote points at a sort of a perennial problem, where folks who have already made up their mind about someone or something just can’t account for the extent to which other folks can look at the same “evidence” and reach different conclusions.

    The stuff out there that is “all there and utterly damaging” is utterly damaging mostly in the eyes of the folks who have already decided that Paul deserves to be dismissed as a kook and a zealot.