Last fall, Rand Paul briefly caused a stir when he suggested that his libertarian principles would require him to have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul danced around the subject, refusing the let himself be pinned down.

Tonight his father and political idol, Ron Paul, appeared on "Hardball" and said, very forthrightly, what his son merely implied:

Rand's statements on the law (which he later retracted) came during his first week as the Republican nominee for Senate in Kentucky in 2010. Ron's criticisms of the law came on the day he declared his third run for the presidency.
"Yeah," he told Matthews when asked if he would have voted against the act in Congress. "But I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws."
Ron, like his son, said that his statement about the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with the law's intentions -- i.e. ending institutionalized discrimination in a wide swath of American life, including in the public accommodations where African Americans were denied service at the height of the Jim Crow era. Paul said he would vote against the law because it imposed unfair rules on what private business owners can and can't do on their own property. Essentially, they should be free to discriminate if they wish, Paul says, however distasteful that may be.
Of course, Ron Paul isn't just a fanatic Ayn Rand devotee like the son he claims he didn't name after her. He's also, as James Kirchick demonstrated last year, a flagrant racist:

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report,published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “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,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”...
This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of hisInvestment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author--presumably Paul--wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88421/ron-pauls-racism

Twice-failed Presidential wannabe Ron Paul’s racism is never far from the surface and reappeared Friday when he admitted to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that he would not have voted for the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 if he had been in Congress at the time.

But Paul has a long and sordid history of hatred towards African-Americans — from his racist rants in his newsletters to his comments that clearly suggest a white supremacist attitude.

On June 4, 2004, while other members of Congress honored the 40th anniversary of the historic act, Paul stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and delivered a diatribe against integration, claiming it violated the Constitution “while diminishing individual freedoms.”

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society,” Paul declared.

Not a surprising statement from a man who is touted on white supremacist web sites as their candidate for President.

On his “Hardball” show Friday, Matthews responded to Paul when he said he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights act:

I once knew a laundromat when I was in the Peace Corps training in Louisiana, in Baker, Louisiana. A laundromat had this sign on it in glaze, ‘whites only on the laundromat, just to use the laundromat machines. This was a local shop saying ‘no blacks allowed.’ You say that should be legal.

“That’s ancient history,” Paul said. “That’s over and done with.”

Sadly, it’s not ancient history as long as racists like Ron Paul continue to appear on the political scene. On the bright side, his racism is just one more reason why Ron Paul will never be President of the United States.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40855

Ron Paul can do no wrong. At least, that's what I'm seeing in the replies to other Blogcritics articles. There are some who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with those racist newsletters (photocopies here; they're very interesting reading). So let's first examine the known facts, the possibilities, and then let's examine the proof. For all those who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul is completely innocent, at least do yourselves the favor of reading this whole article before replying. The known facts:

1 - Ron Paul's newsletters came out under at least three different names, but have been published mostly on a monthly basis since 1978.

2 - The racist newsletter articles in question were written over a five-year period, from 1989 to 1994.

The possibilities:

1 - Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter.

2 - A ghostwriter for Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter (and Ron Paul either knew or did not know about what the ghostwriter wrote).

3 - Ron Paul was in no way associated with Ron Paul's newsletter and couldn't have written the articles.

In a 2008 interview with CNN, Mr. Paul flatly denied writing those articles in his newsletter, he denied knowing who wrote them, and CNN was told by a Paul spokesman that the Paul campaign would not try to find out who wrote them.

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, Ron Paul stated that his campaign staff told him that "it would have been too confusing" to come right out and say that he didn't write any of those articles.

The proof:

So far it all looks rather harmless, if confusingly so, right? But the Libertarian site reason.com points out what was published in 1996:

The Dallas Morning News:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation...In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said. He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

The Houston Chronicle:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."...Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

The Austin American-Statesman:

"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on."... Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said. "Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said.

The Washington Post:

Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context. "Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

Roll Call:

In a statement, Paul said he had "labored to conduct a campaign based upon the issues that are vital to our nation" and charged Morris with "repeated attempts...to reduce the campaign to name calling and race-baiting." He called Morris's request that he release all back issues of the newsletter "not only impractical, but...equivalent to asking him to provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career." Of his statements about Jordan, Paul said that "such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong: I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes."

When Ron Paul was asked by several newspapers about the racist newsletter articles in 1996, he did not deny writing them, and it's quite apparent that his staff thought he wrote them, too.


So it boils down to this: either Ron Paul had no idea what was being written in his newsletter over a five-year period, and when he was asked about it by the newspapers, he chose not to deny that he wrote them and deliberately allowed his staff to believe that he wrote them, or Ron Paul wrote those articles in his newsletter and then later realized that by exposing his own racism, he might well cost himself any real chance at the White House.

Lastly, I'd like to refer Ron Paul supporters to a real liberatarian, Dave Nalle, head of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who had this to say about Ron Paul:

[Ron Paul is] an inflexible ideologue who subscribes to a variety of extremist views which would make a terrible basis for national policy. His interpretation of the Constitution is highly selective. He seems not to recognize terms like "public welfare" and "common good" and rejects the long history of constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence on which most law is based. His understanding of the economy is based on fringe economic theories which most serious economists do not consider credible. As for foreign policy, it's an area in which Paul has no experience at all and his foreign policy would basically amount to isolationism which would have disastrous economic and political repercussions.

[Ron Paul supporters] completely overlook Paul's support for the reactionary conspiracy nuts at the John Birch Society and the reprehensible 9/11 Truth movement or the fact that he raises money on white supremacist websites and has the endorsement of racist leaders like former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, White Aryan leader Tom Metzger and Stormfront Fuhrer Don Black.

I should note here that I owe Dave Nalle an apology: I accused him repeatedly of being a Ron Paul supporter, and I was obviously wrong. That said, Mr. Nalle and I agree on very little, but we're apparently in complete agreement that a Ron Paul presidency would be a very, very bad thing for America, and that if Ron Paul's not a racist, he's certainly doing his level best to make us think that he is!

Read more: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/a-quick-investigation-into-ron-pauls/page-2/#ixzz1bMzX88be

Right there, proof Ron Raul DID write the racist articles. Past interviews where he talks about writing the articles HIMSELF.

Yes, he is.

The thing that confuses many people about all this is that Paul doesn't claim he's a racist and has apparently said things that could indicate otherwise. However, many people whose biases are exposed attempt to hide them in public forums after the issue has been revealed and it gets in the way of their future. He is a politician. It's what he says when fewer people are listening that's most important. Now that he's more in the spotlight, perhaps the tune has changed enough to even fool certain minority organizations. But back around 20 years ago, he didn't think he needed them. That's when you got the truth. Some people want to believe him because they like his other ideas. But they really shouldn't ignore the charge, which is far from being without merit.

There's no excuse for what's written in those newsletters, not in any context. If you've only heard about them, you should make the effort to find and read them for yourself. As for "context", when writing for public distribution, nothing should ever be included that has the ability to be taken out of context. In other words, you don't phrase things in a way that can be heard with alternative meaning. An effort should be made to find any sentence that could possibly be "misunderstood" and there should be a caveat within that same sentence. Most of all, you don't make a derogatory statement or quote a negative statistic and then wait to clarify or justify it a few sentences later. And as mentioned, it was his newsletter so it doesn't matter who wrote the statements. If you have a newsletter that publishes things you don't agree with, then you are either not very good at clearing your articles, or you're not being truthful about your disapproval.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110819002651AAygi9o

quoting blogs and answers to questions on yahoo?

Quoting interviews he gave to major news outlets verifying he wrote those articles.

Libertarians are often maligned by people who don't understand them.

I have no idea whether this smear campaign against Ron Paul is factual, so I won't comment on that.

In decent world, I would support the right of a small mom and pop laundromat to be as stupidly racist as they want to be in their business transactions, just as I support the right of an individual racist cretin to not hang out with black people. In that same decent world, that racist laundromat would go out of business real quick, as decent people wouldn't patronize them.

yahoo answers is a major news outlet? That's like comparing a small covered bridge to the Golden Gate.

IF you called me these kinds of names Id sue you for libel. You are either extremely dishonest, or have the reading comprehension of a 4 yo, that may be a little harsh, I know some 4yo that might understand.

The philosophy of small government interaction is not racist.

technically, libel is usually more than name calling, depending on whether it falls under 'opinion' or 'allegation'

Your right I meant defamation of character.