Home investigative Proof: Ron Paul Lied About Not Being the Author of the Newsletters
Home investigative Proof: Ron Paul Lied About Not Being the Author of the Newsletters

Proof: Ron Paul Lied About Not Being the Author of the Newsletters

After quotes and copies from Ron Paul's newsletters appeared in The New Republic, Ron Paul once again trotted out the old tale that he had no idea the newsletters had any racist and crackpot conspiracy theory material in them and that a mysterious person had been responsible for writing racist things in them without him knowing about them.

Now let's look at the extracts from the newsletters that have been released, specifically let's look at December 1990, image files follow below.

The newsletter calls Martin Luther King a Communist pedophile, Ron Paul has countered that he has a great deal of respect for MLK. And then we scroll down the newsletter to discover the mysterious author of this newsletter at the very bottom as he writes;

My wife Carol and our children and grandchildren join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists and other big government types making America freer, and thus truer to her own heritage in 1991.

Now either the "mysterious stranger" writing this had a wife named Carol and lots of grandchildren, or Ron Paul is a liar and is the actual author of the newsletters. The medical reference under the teenage girls sex piece also suggests Ron Paul is the author. There is no break between this section and any of the others. It contains the same sort of loony ranting about conspiracy theories that the rest, disproving Andrew Sullivan's claims that "it just doesn't feel like Ron Paul".

The January 1991 newsletter features the author mentioning another congressman as "my successor" and talking about his experience as "a flight surgeon in the air force" and then afterward launching into another tirade about Martin Luther King. Again this is Ron Paul's record, not someone else. The author is clearly Ron Paul

In that same newsletter the author writes about his time running for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ron Paul ran for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Here it is completely unambiguous that the author is Ron Paul and that he is expressing his own views about Martin Luther King.

In Feb of 1991 the author writes that he voted against "an expensive federal holiday for this man" referring to King. Of course Ron Paul famously voted against recognizing MLK day as a holiday.

It appears that not only is Ron Paul a racist but he just issued false statements during a Presidential campaign. That alone should disqualify him from public office.

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Update: If there is any further doubt in this regard, Ron Paul himself has contradicted his own story. via Captains Quarters and Reason Magazine

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

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. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

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.
May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:

Some blogs, some in the LGF comments section and AllahPundit at HotAir are saying that it doesn't matter who the author is. I counter that it does. If Ron Paul lied about authorship, then he's made a false statement during a presidential campaign right now, rather than having published a newsletter with racist statements two decades ago. Considering the evidence, he has to disprove his authorship before getting a pass on it. If he proves he is not the author, then we can begin examining what degree of knowledge and control he had.


  1. Anonymous8/1/08

    But then again, a lot the dirt on MLK is really dirty! Do people have to love MLK to prove they aren't racist? I think you are being unfair to Dr. Paul.

  2. at the very least it proves ron paul lied about his love for MLK and not being the author of the newsletters

  3. Anonymous8/1/08

    Streeeetch, lets try to discredit Ron Paul, Streeeetch. Dig into his past, find nothing so you streeeetch.

    Good Luck!

  4. Not a matter of MLK or the rest of what he said being true/untrue, its about him covering up how he really feels.
    If he does feel this way, why not say so and be honest about it in public?

  5. BTW, what is a trilateralist? Ron Paul keeps using the word in his newsletter.

    As for his lying about MLK, he has to. He can't say the real reason he hates MLK and you can bet it has nothing to do with MLK's extramarital affairs.

  6. Anonymous10/1/08

    Good Post, O Sultan of Truth! Beware, though; it appears you've already attracted folks from the Luap Nor Wingnut Party.

    " Anonymous said...
    Streeeetch, lets try to discredit Ron Paul, Streeeetch. Dig into his past, find nothing so you streeeetch.

    Good Luck!

    7:20 PM"

    But, then again, they've been let out of the basement by Mommy for the day, and they forgot to take their meds. The rEVOLution fatwa against the unfortunate Sultan Knish begins in 5...4...3...2...

  7. yes i suppose it's only a matter of time until i make their enemies list and they start hurling fake gold coins with ron paul's head on them through my window

  8. Anonymous10/1/08

    Your article certainly raises awareness - even to a Ron Paul leaning voter. However, what do you say about his infinitely held public position that MLK was a hero? What about his willingness to contribute his OWN money to honor Rosa Parks as opposed to using bankrupt federal funds? What about his decision to consider Walter Williams previously as his runningmate? Mr. Williams is a black man and apparently, respected and admired by Ron Paul. How do these FACTS also weigh against your strong allegations? Would you be willing to consider those in your article as well?

  9. like most politicians, there's a gap between ron paul's public and private statements

    out of congress and in these newsletters, he was clearly more willing to speak out on his beliefs than he was on the house floor and that's only natural

    most politicians only really begin telling you what they think, once they get out of public office... take Jimmy Carter for example

    the Rosa Parks medal was grandstanding, just like Paul voting against his own earmarks. It would have been a credible gesture only if he seriously believed it would come to that. Instead he used it to make a point about his fellow congressman, a point he knew he'd never have to follow through on

    talking about "considering" Walter Williams doesn't actually mean anything. Besides paleocons like Buchanan have made alliances with people they find morally repulsive, such as Justin Raimondo. Taki funds half the paleocon movement and he's a convicted cokehead. Buchanan allied with Fulani to get the Reform party

    finally presidents and vp's rarely get along, this administration excepted. Clinton and Gore or Reagan and Bush basically hated each other. You pick a VP for political advantage, so a choice of VP means very little

  10. How do these facts weigh against Knish's allegations - they add up to Ron Paul trying to cover up his past racist statements without coming out honestly and saying "I was wrong then." For me, that casts a lot of doubt on whether he is telling the truth now about what he feels about MLK. He certainly did vote against making King's birthday a national holiday - that's on the record.

  11. ron paul has tried to argue that he's based all his votes on principle, that he thinks black people are just great but he was voting on principle against what was unconstitutional

    and that's the real problem with paul, he hides all of his views behind the constitution and these newsletters give us a peek at his real motives and beliefs and accordingly his present day dishonesty in sanitizing them

  12. Anonymous10/1/08

    yochanan of lgf


    also an interesting read with lots of links to the facts in question

    with thanks to the blues brothers

  13. Good point Rebecca. If he were truly sorry he would have said so publicly from the get go. As it is, the more and more he speaks the deeper the hole he is digging himself into.

    Ron Paul is pro-slavery no matter how he tries to rationalize it; consorts with neo-Nazis and Muslims and worse accepts money from them. In my book that makes him a racist.

    BTW I read more of the comments on Digg from RP's defenders (little toadies like Renfield in Dracula no doubt. 'Master! Master'!).

    Seriously though, if they can't see that a statement written in first person by a man who is congress, has a wife named carol and worked as flight surgeon wasn't written by Ron Paul they're insane and their loyalty and defense of him reeks of the kind of defense and militance you see among neo-Nazis.

    And again, the AMA should yank his medical license. Someone with these racial biases isn't fit to give medical care to all patients regardless of race or religion.

    Long comment, but I had trouble registering on Digg so I decided to write it here.

  14. thanks, andrew walden has been doing a great job keeping tabs on paul

  15. yes, he's quite clearly lied about authorship, that's a grave charge

    as for Digg the ron paul fanatics took it over under multiple accounts so it's a waste of time mainly but stories like this frustrate them

  16. Sultan, I just posted a major article on all this from my perspective of 12 years working for Paul at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com

    It echoes your sentiments, but zeros in on a very specific comment of Paul's that hits close to home, literally.

  17. Ah, so you're the one who "proved" that Ron Paul wrote the MLK article. Your proof being that the issue also mentions that Paul's wife is named Carol, that he is a doctor, and that he voted against recognizing MLK day as a national holiday.

    Your proof fails because:
    1) the name of Paul's wife, and the fact he's a doctor, are common knowledge; any writer would have known about them.
    2) the only claim that is not public knowledge, but has to be checked - that Paul voted against recognizing MLK Day - is wrong. In fact, Paul's voted in favor of recognizing MLK Day.


    The fact that the author is wrong about this demolishes the case that the author is really Ron Paul. Even Jamie Kirchick, the author of the New Republic hit piece, has backed off that claim.

  18. actually i also noted that the author was a flight surgeon and ran for president in 88 on the libertarian ticket

    now it could all just be somebody impersonating Ron Paul but that brings us into the realm of conspiracy theories and if Ron Paul wants to claim that, he's going to have to prove it

    as to your claim about Ron Paul voting for MLK Day, that's a blatant lie


  19. Note that American society has become so pandering, so PC that a person who did not vote for MLK day has to pretend he did to seem 'nice'?
    I find that a rotten commentary.
    If he didnt vote so what? It is not mandatory to vote for someone you don't think deserves a day of their own.
    It is time people took back their voices and let free choice begin in this nation once again.
    I would not have voted for it either.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like