Ron Paul’s Racist, Homophobic Newsletters Will Pretty Much Kill His Campaign

The most recent Iowa polls show Ron Paul winning the January 3rd Iowa Caucuses, but that’s gonna change once voters read the worst passages from his racist, homophobic and paranoid newsletters.

The New Republic scanned in pages of the newsletters’ most jaw-dropping passages and believe us—they’re horrendous. Here are some of the most shocking:

“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.”

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.”

The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that “gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense,” adding: “[T]hese men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners.” Also, “they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.”

The newsletters also contain articles defending former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, anti-Semitic chess champion Bobby Fischer and advice on the best way to kill an “urban youth” without getting caught. Ron Paul has disavowed the articles and has denied reading or writing them thus far, but that doesn’t matter seeing he still published them.

Ron Paul never really had a chance of winning the presidency, but this pretty much sinks any chance he had for greater public appeal. He might wanna reconsider his pledge not to seek another term in Congress in order to concentrate on his presidential campaign. Without a Congressional seat, he’ll have to go back to being a doctor, which is just as well seeing as he should definitely not go back into publishing.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #alsharpton #anti-semitism #homophobia stories and more


  • Darren

    When the media starts by saying that Ron Paul is unelectable because he loves Muslims but when that fails to deter support switches to saying that Ron Paul is unelectable because he is a racist then you know that something doesn’t add up.

  • Jose Soto

    @Darren: Agreed.

    What they don’t know is that the more that they say he is unelectable the more he
    becomes electable. Stupid establishment media, soon Andy Towle, Advocate, Lez Get Real,
    will be a thing of the past as well as the rest of the dinosaur media.

  • bruce

    I’d still vote for Ron Paul. I think he’s being mis-represented on his views. Besides, why has it taken 20 years for this to come to light? Something’s fishy. I think they’re trying to smear him.

  • nomr

    That this newsletter would sink his campaign is ridiculous, I mean this is his only baggage a 20 year old newsletter that he didn’t write. Gingrich and Romney carry WAY more baggage that they are directly responsible for. Ron Paul is neither homophobic nor racist and I’ll still vote for him knowing that these newsletters were written in his name. As a libertarian Ron Paul views people as individuals he doesn’t put them in groups if you read any of his books it’s clear that he´d never write bullshit filled newsletters like this nor allow them to go published if he knew what was written in them. At the time loads of newsletters and writings were coming out under his name and he only contributed to a minority of them as he was practicing medicine at the time. Calling Ron Paul homophobic or racist because of this is pretty idiotic.

  • Kev C

    White people still voted for Obama even after they learned his pastor was an anti-american black nationalist and the Obama’s probably hated whites. And blacks will still vote for Ron Paul because of his policy on ending the war on drugs.

  • Zee

    I always knew Ron Paul was a dried up, hateful, racist and homophobic asshole extremist and have hated the way the media had pretty much overlooked that until recently. No one with his disgusting mindset should be allowed anywhere near the White House or any form of public office. He’s an evil crazy old man who should be shunned.

  • FreddyMertz

    I USED to have respect for him….and yes people can evolve on certain issues…but to go out and say he knew nothing about the content of the newsletter carrying his lame. (see I rhymed).

  • JKB

    — Scholars contacted by Reuters for comment pointed out that even though Paul’s own statements over the years have shown a continuing support for minority rights, his apparent lack of interest in keeping track of what was being published under his name raises questions about his “managerial competence.”

    Politics professor Larry Sabato noted, “Ron Paul would have us believe that this newsletter went out under his name and a direct-mail solicitation for it went out under his signature, yet he knew nothing about it. That is not credible. Or is it that Paul can’t control his own staff? … At the very least, more explanation is needed.” —

  • Libertarian Larry

    As a Libertarian myself, I must state that I and many of my cohorts are not fans of Ron Paul, nor do we support him. He’s just a little too out there for our taste, which is why I can envision him allowing these newsletters to be published, regardless of who wrote them. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I don’t necessarily disagree with him on some points. Those of us who were around during the early 80s can recall all too clearly the hysteria from the gay community accusing the government of intentionally trying to kill us because they weren’t doing enough to curb AIDS. Our attitude seemed to be, “Wear a condom? Never! We want unsafe sex and you have to provide it for us NOW!”

    @calvin: You say, “Libertarians are the worst kind of republicans,” which is woefully misguided. We’re neither left nor right, we simply believe that the less government intrusion on our lives, the better off we’ll all be. And unless you depend on a welfare check, you should agree.

  • MikeE

    @Libertarian Larry: Honestly? You think people were up in arms about the US gov’t doing nothing about AIDS because you think it had to do with wanting to “fuck without a condom”? Are you an idiot?

    The gay community was up in arms because the US gov’t was LITERALLY doing nothing. No money for research. No money for prevention and education. They were not even TALKING about it, ignoring it as if it would either go away, or at least take all the gays along with it.

    “Unless you depend on a welfare check”? So I guess you ARE a Republikkkan in the end. If there are people in difficulty, well, let them fend for themselves. We have no business giving them any sort of support or help. Right?

    You’re sick.

  • David Ehrenstein

    Everyone in here should head on over to Twoeleroad where Paul supporters have compeltely taken over a thread about his racism and homophobia. Haven’t seena Cult of Peronality like this — in full psychotic flower — since Lyndon Larouche.

    Can’t wait to read Sully The Pooh’s newest defense of his Crackpot Deity at “The Daily Beast.”

  • WillBFair

    This is questionable evidence. But I’m against Paul for other reasons.
    He’s a Libertarian, which is way stupid. They know zip about history, about government subsidy and regulation of industries and populations going back to Rome, ancient China, the British Empire, and on and on. The mixed economy is the most successful model in history, from the beginning, period. The free market is a crude fantasy for people who don’t read books.
    The governing process is more difficult in a democracy because the public must help decide whom to regulate and/or subsidize. Though the issues are not that complicated, the public are lazy rubes and prefer Libertarians and their ignorant and simpleminded delusions.

  • WillBFair

    @Libertarian Larry: For your info, Rome provided food vouchers for the poor. And the bible commands it.
    But of course, this is a public forum, open to people who don’t know the first thing about Western history and culture.

  • WillBFair

    @David Ehrenstein: The LaRouche comparison is so apt. They are found these days on the fringes of the occupy movement, and still hopelessly impervious to reality.

  • Libertarian Larry

    @MikeE: Hey, I’m having financial difficulties too, but I don’t turn to Uncle Sam and say, “Support me with a check.” Losers do that, not me. Also, unless you were around in the early 80s, don’t presume to know what you’re talking about. Despite the fact that EVERYONE knew that AIDS was out there and it could kill you if you didn’t take precautions (yes, even the government put out AIDS PSAs back then), there were countless rallies and protests blaming the government for our failure to take responsibility for our own actions. The same whiney sentiment was echoed in the 90s when cigarette smokers began blaming tobacco companies for their addiction. So in case Mom never told you, these are the facts of life: If you smoke too much, drink too much, drive too fast, it’ll kill you. Oh, and if you let a diseased man cum inside you, that’ll kill you too.

  • Cinesnatch

    Well, if you consider that Queerty publishes Danny Villarreal’s posts, then you’d consider that a brand can be easily tarnished by someone who goes by a different, less recognized name.

  • Cinesnatch

    @David Ehrenstein: Yes, you can find such cult of personality every day. In fact, you can find it on Towleroad itself, as in rank-and-file gays coming out against anything they deem even remotely homophobic.

  • David Ehrenstein

    @Libertarian Larry: Check out the new documentary “We Were Here” for the truth about the AIDS epedemic , and the response to it in its very early days. I’m 64, and rememebr it all. This film is TRUE.

    Of course Truth means nothing to “Libertarians” of oyur stripe.

  • Cinesnatch

    @JKB: You’ve made the only valid point in this whole matter.

  • MikeE

    @Libertarian Larry: I was around FAR longer than in the 80’s.

    I was part of the fight to gain gay rights in the late 60s and early 70s.

    So likewise, don’t try to pull any bullshit.

    As for being financially “tight”, there are people who cannot find work at all. there are people who are injured, or sick. THOSE people need the support of the people. but since you’re too selfish to help others…

  • David

    These newsletter are absolute proof that, fifteen to twenty years ago, Paul irresponsibly failed to adequately monitor material that was going out in his name. If only he would come out and publicly state that those are not his words or his beliefs!

    Oh, wait. He did.

    If only he would acknowledge that it was still his fault for letting the newsletters go out without editing them!

    Oh, wait. He did.

    If only his voting record and public speeches demonstrated his lack of prejudice – or better yet, a firm commitment to individual rights!

    Oh, wait. They do.

    Huh. Oh, well, I’m sure anything I write can be safely ignored. The fact that I speak well of Ron Paul makes me ipso facto part of his “cult,” doesn’t it?

  • calvin

    @David: Paul supports DOMA and has voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. Rated 38% by the HRC.

  • WillBFair

    But really, let’s not devolve into a total bitchfest. It’s Christmas!!!
    Everyone shall have a happy day, on strict oders of the Christmas Police!


  • Hyhybt

    [quote]That this newsletter would sink his campaign is ridiculous, I mean this is his only baggage a 20 year old newsletter that he didn’t write.[/quote]One of two things must be true: he agreed with those things at the time and, even after they’ve come to light, rather than admitting it and saying he’s changed his mind, he’s essentially lying… or else it’s true that he spent several years putting his name on documents with no clue what they said.

    The latter is far worse than the former in a potential president.

  • Shannon

    @calvin: Ron Paul was one of the few Republicans that voted to repeal DADT. Also, the Libertarian Party has included gay rights as part of its official platform since 1976.

    The more you know…

  • calvin

    @Shannon: As I said he has a 38% rating from HRC. Ron Paul is a Republican. He is not running as Libertarian.

  • David

    calvin – Paul considers gay rights a 10th amendment issue: a decision for states to make and the federal government to leave alone. I disagree with him on that – I think it’s a 14th amendment issue; since the states extend certain rights based on marriage, they can’t discriminate on the basis of sex. Actually, Paul wants the government completely out of the marriage business.
    I sympathize with (although I won’t insult you by claiming to understand from experience) the frustration at waiting for either voters to get over their homophobia or SCOTUS to strike down sex discrimination in marriage laws. But in Paul’s case (as opposed to most of the GOP), it’s a result of his understanding of the Constitution rather than hatred or fear. I understand that for some people, that issue is a deal breaker. That’s fine – we all have our priorities. I just don’t think it’s right to accuse one of the Republican party’s most tolerant members of prejudice when he’s wrong, but honestly wrong.

  • Mike

    @bruce: They’ve been around for a long, long time. It’s come up in almost every run he’s made for the house, and it came up during 2008 as well.

  • Mike

    @Shannon: “State’s Rights”, as we all know, is Republican code for “I’ll just let someone else oppress you and it won’t be my fault.” Did anyone else see Bruno?! I think we should all understand by now how he feels about us.

  • Hyhybt

    @Mike: @Mike: *Usually* it is. That’s proven, if proof be needed, by their changing their tune and pushing for a federal amendment when states allow marriage.

    He hasn’t done that. Just the opposite.

    I disagree with him on quite a lot, and don’t think he would be a good choice for president, but he’s one of the few politicians I *will* trust when they say their reason for taking the position they do is that they believe it’s not the government’s business to be involved in the first place.

  • calvin

    @David: Then why he supports DOMA? Why he voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC?

  • Joetx

    Oh great, in addition to the homophobe trolls, we now have Ron Paul zombies to deal with.

  • Caliban

    Um, so it’s somehow unreasonable to ask Ron Paul to defend articles published in THE RON PAUL REPORT, under the byline RON PAUL, written in the first person?! (“As a physician…”) Even if he didn’t personally write them IT DOESN’T MATTER! If he continued to allow people to write articles UNDER HIS OWN NAME without stopping them from doing so, he either AGREED with what was written or he’s too stupid to be President! He allowed these articles to be published for years, under his name, in a publication that CARRIED his name, sold to people as his own words, so either way they ARE his responsibility whether he actually wrote them or not!

    It’s like handing your credit card to someone else, letting them use it, and then YEARS later whining to the credit card company about how you’re not responsible for the bill!

    And his opposition to DOMA as part of his Libertarian philosophy does NOT make him a friend to or supporter of the LGBT community! It just means that in this ONE INSTANCE our goals are the same but for entirely different reasons. Don’t be fooled.

  • Hyhybt

    @Caliban: More like handing someone your credit card, *following them around to sign the slip whenever they buy something,* and then complaining later you had no idea.

  • runner305

    @bruce: Let me get this straight: if you had a newsletter that was printed in YOUR name, wouldn’t you be at least somewhat curious as to what was printed in it? In various editions? Repeatedly? Or would you claim ignorance as your justification for hateful things to be printed under YOUR name??

  • mk_ultra_again

    David E is right about Ron Paul. Total cult of personality. Talk about “Yes we can” for 2012!

  • Lucifer

    I liked Ron until I did my own research and saw him with the leader of the Storm Front movement. Ron Paul drop dead.

  • tjr101

    Ron Paul’s supporters seem to be almost entirely online, and no where else. They highjack threads about him to push this idea that he is oh so virtuous and honest.

    The guy opposes government in all forms, and we NEED government whether the Paul zombies like it or not. Every society needs a social safety net, Ron Paul will shred to pieces whatever little is left of it in America. There are millions that live in poverty and need public assistance.

    Funny how he opposes government safety nets yet still supports a discriminatory policy like DOMA. How conveniently selfish his views are, “I have mine and you can do without.”

  • Ronbo

    Things could be worse, Obama could continue Republican policy trashing of Social Security.

  • David Ehrenstein

    @tjr101: Over i in Towleroad a Paultard called “Gloria of Borg” is claiming that Andy is censoring Paultard posts. This is a Total Lie and typical of thse characters.

  • Gloria of Borg

    Uhhhmmm… I post here, too, David.

    My previous alias at Queerty was Zzzz, and you can read some of my posts, right here:

    So, what are you doing, David? You believed that you could come here and talk behind my back? That’s not very classy of you.

    Actually, I understand what you’re doing: you’re attempting to go out of your way to save Towleroad some face. And, that’s nice of you, I might wish you luck on that, but the cat is out of the bag: they did censor my post.

    I submitted a very fair post, a post without obscenities or anything of the sort; it talked about Obama’s wrong doings in comparison to the accusations being lobbed toward Ron Paul, but the mods wouldn’t/didn’t post it.

    Of course, my other posts were posted, but a post which leveled Obama, a post which would have exposed many of you pretentious anti-Ron Paul folks as the hypocrites that you happen to be, SOMEHOW it was not posted, thus folks were not allowed a chance to read it.

    If you want to chalk it up as some kind of glitch, that it got lost in the system somehow, so be it, I may accept that, but don’t tell me that it didn’t happen and don’t attempt to paint me as the liar, especially not behind my back, because — not only is that low — but you would be wrong to do so.

  • Cinesnatch

    @Gloria of Borg: Funny that you should say that, Gloria. I, as well as four others (mostly self-described black men), were censored on Towleroad last summer during the first Tracey Morgan thread. I complained on the thread and then a few days later, my complaint disappeared, but one of my two original posts resurfaced (not the posts of the other men). In none of those dissenting posts was anything inappropriate ever said. The only crime was not falling into the ranks with everyone else.

  • Cinesnatch

    Dear Daniel, You still haven’t addressed the egregious errors you made in your last Ron Paul post. Are you just going to let me stand?

  • Benny

    @bruce: They are desperate, really desperate to taint Ron Paul! Did anybody see the CNN interview of nearly 10 minutes of trying to knock him down time after time! Then they had the audacity to say he stormed off the interview. Well it turns out he did not and it was even reported in the British press that he did not as CNN tried to claim!

    Mind you those so called racist homophobic newsletters Ron Paul has denounced are timid stuff compared to what that Newt”get rich”Gingrich has said in the past!

  • declanto

    It’s become a rite of passage, each and every repugnikkk front-runner seems to implode upon reaching a certain “altitude” in the polls.
    @Gloria of Borg: All the excuses being made for rep. Paul by all his cult of neo-libertarian apologists will never manage to put his balloon back up there. IMHO there is no excuse possible for allowing his name to be associated with such appalling hate-bait. This was a cynical tactic to raise campaign contributions.

  • Kieran

    I’m surprised the lamestream newsmedia hasn’t accused Ron Paul of trying to acquire “weapons of mass destruction”. Ron Paul is the type of stand up guy that would readily admit it if he had written those newsletters. For the record, he has repeatedly denied writing these things.

  • Robert in NYC

    @tjr101: Exactly right. Paul, like other republicans don’t care about other people except themselves. Paul recently said that if a young working person doesn’t have health insurance through an employer or doesn’t buy any and suddenly gets sick and needs medical care, it’s their own fault if they die. A social safety net is taboo in their utopian world. Not one of them can tell you how they would get access to health care, emergency or otherwise, if they lost their jobs, their health insurance, their savings, in fact everything. They can’t come up with one rational response and that’s just the health care issue.

  • Robert in NYC

    @tjr101: Exactly right. Paul, like other republicans doesn’t care about other people except themselves. They call it taking responsibility for one’s actions. Paul recently said that if a young working person doesn’t have health insurance through an employer or doesn’t buy any and suddenly gets sick and needs medical care, it’s their own fault if they die. A social safety net is taboo in their utopian world. Every major industrialized nation has one. Not one of these republicans, by they tea partyers or civil libertarians can tell you how they would get access to health care, emergency or otherwise, if they lost their jobs, their health insurance, their savings, in fact everything. They can’t come up with one rational response and that’s just the health care issue.

  • Cody

    Not only is Ron Paul the LEAST homophobic of any of the Republican candidates running for president, he’s also the ONLY ANTI-WAR candidate running for president in 2012. Imagine having a US President who doesn’t believe it’s America’s job to fight all the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East. Imagine a US president who would worry about solving America’s myriad problems instead of spending trillions of US taxpayer dollars “making the world safe for democracy”.

  • Stephen

    This. Is. Such. Old. News.

    Really, Villareal? I googled this in 2004

  • tjr101

    @Kev C: The fact that someone like you who espouses views similar to the extreme ones spoken by Jason, supports Ron Paul speaks volumes. Ron Paul would be terrible for America.

  • Mabalene Villy

    Too bad Paul is homophobic. Otherwise, you racist queens could vote for him. Alas, Paul hates your guts too.

  • ewe

    I don’t know about anyone else but i am not surprised at all.

  • Will

    Just to point out; these hate speech newsletters that “Ron Paul” wrote stated in the first person that he denounced and voted down MLK day. Yet looking at the voting record for that bill and you will see that he said yes to it’s passing.

  • Jim

    It doesn’t take much time searching about this issue to know that this story has been rehashed and responded to multiple times over the last decade. Also, isn’t it odd that this old story gets rehashed again as soon as polls had him in the lead in the Iowa Caucuses?

    Enough people claim to want to hear a response from Paul, but, for those who are truly interested:

  • rick

    Oh my, Ron Paul is scandalous. You can tell by how the media HATES him. Makes me like him even more. Do your research. Ron Paul’s personal beliefs don’t matter that much. It is his conviction that the Constitution should rule us all that I love. I have more confidence in equal protection under a president like Paul than under Romney or even Obama at this point.

  • Devin

    As an African American, I will STILL vote for Ron Paul. Even if this is true, so what? He’s campaign is not designed to help a certain race, it’s to help the country.

    Ron Paul 2012

  • captainburrito

    The newsletter says that gay men are not married and yet that was in 1994… and even recently he did not support gay marriage. So how the heck were gay men supposed to be married (other than in sham marriages)? Like saying blacks don’t vote when they didn’t have the right to vote. O_o I’d be surprised if he wrote them. Not trying to get him off the hook since he still published them so he is responsible for the content but he is one of the sharpest politicians even when put on the spot with unfair questions.

Comments are closed.