". . . he's a good guy"?

Yeah, he hasn't led any lynchings, at least lately.

I suggest that you consider this.

Ron Paul's son, Senator Rand Paul, has come out opposing the Civil Rights Act. He feels that business owners SHOULD be able to discriminate and not allow some to frequent their businesses.

Sorry, but the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. It must be a duck. You're fooling yourself if you think EITHER Paul isn't a racist.

"he's a good guy"

Uh, huh! Can you just imagine the extreme outrage in the TeaGOP had President Obama produced the equivalent newsletter commenting about whites and years later tried to disavow its contents? They'd be marching on the White House lawn with torches and pitchforks!

Ron Paul is a dangerous KOOK!

". . . he's a good guy"

I've never rolled my eyes so hard in my whole life.

This is more proof that Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters. Why would he vote for MLK Day then later call it "Hate Whitey Day?"

You're right, it's totally out of the norm for someone to be publically post-racial, while privately or semi-privately espousing racial beliefs. That's not something that racists do at all. They never say they respect all people of all creeds and colors when at work and then go home and support the Klan. You're right, because cowardly hypocrisy has never been associated with racism.

I don't want to be mean. I just think that Ron Paul's supporters are just trying to extend to him virtue that he just doesn't deserve. He's against several forms of corruption and warmongering that none of the other GOP candidates, and most of the Right Wing pundits, will not come out against, or even acknowledge.

I credit him for this, I really do. But he's not responsible, he sticks to his libertarian philosophy. It's good that he doesn't "Romney" (new verb for flip-flopping."

But consistency isn't the same thing as Integrity.

If Ron Paul really believed that Martin Luther King day was "Hate Whitey Day", and in the newsletter it says he voted against it then why do the files indicate he voted in favor of making it a national holiday?

Maddows facts are all wrong... She should report the truth and not her opinion..

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

(and he wasn't the only republican who voted for it.. please get the facts right too =))

Good lord people are getting annoying this Christmas. What facts did Maddow get incorrect and what opinion did she report on? Rachel Maddow at no point in her podcast or on this thread insinuated or outright stated that Ron Paul did not vote for MLK Day. The article in question claimed that Ron Paul did not vote for it, of which neither of you 2 bloggers are disputing. By your own omission here Maddow did not get anything factually wrong so do not accuse her of doing so. Now you could state that you find it troubling that she did not point this out during her podcast in which case I would agree w/ you. But do not accuse her of lying or making factually inaccurate statements unless that's what actually happened

Additionally it should be pointed out that it is irrelevant whether or not someone else could have signed Ron Paul's name and it is also irrelevant whether or not Ron Paul himself wrote this article. That was not the point in question w/ Maddow's broadcast. Maddow was asking why, if Ron Paul is indeed correct that he had nothing to do w/ this particular article, he initially endorsed the position and then later back tracked it down the road. She also asked why it was that he did not see these questions coming and why he did not have a more adequate defense prepared, especially when he has a history of having well grounded arguments prepared ahead of the press.

Okay just so everyone knows the whole "Ron Paul voted for the MLK Jr holiday" stuff is balogna. The bill everyone is citing is H.R. 5461 which was considered and failed to pass the house in 1979 and belonged to the 96th Congress (a Congress that Ron Paul never served on).

I should clarify- he came into office on the 97th Congress. He had served in office a little bit prior to that during the 96th Congress, but he had only done so via special election. He was then voted out of office when the actual election came up and did not regain his seat (to vote) until 1980.

Some related links to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR05461: (HR 5461 failed to pass the House of representatives)

mouzer- thanks for the research... I love claifications...

From the looks of it, this legislative action that Ron Paul voted "Aye" on was an amendment to make the proposed holiday date the third Monday in January rather than Jan. 15. This wasn't a vote on legislation to make King's birthday a federal holiday.

Legislation designating King's birthday as a holiday didn't pass until 1983. That legislation was H.R. 3706, sponsored by Katie Hall, a Democrat from Indiana.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:H.R.3706:

Here's the tally of the Aug. 2, 1983 House vote...

TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R. 3706, A BILL AMENDING TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE TO MAKE THE BIRTHDAY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY. (MOTION PASSED;2/3 REQUIRED)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289

Ron Paul voted "nay".

Glad to hear this RP....my statement that we are all everything means we are all capable of racism, hate, greed, love etc... being honest, i have felt these things during my 50 years on this earth...so who am i to judge others?

Listening to the debates, i have realized Paul is the only candidate that references the Constitution to make his arguments for or against policy. This resonates with me... although Obama has my vote in 2012. peace

As an educated Black in Illinois, I reject the idea of racism being equated to a game. It's not playing the race card when bigoted comments are flagged and brought to the attention of the people.

Also I think you'll find, sadly, that the media no longer tries to investigate issues as they should. If they had, they would have reported this story conclusively; showing the racist comments as proof of Ron Paul's being unfit for Presidential service. Instead, I'm afraid they've done what has become all too easy for them.

They've simply, lazily, posted the evidence and tossed softball questions at the candidate, hoping for something risque to happen. They've gone from being detectives on behalf of the American Public, to being the kid in the schoolyard that makes sure two parties have properly heard the insults that each has said about the other. And for the same reason, to see a show.

@Dewey, I like the idea of humility, that we all acknowledge we are fallible. But this is a matter of irresponsibility and philosophy. This is a matter of what he believes. Ron Paul has a devotion to the constitution, and for that matter, a familiarity with it; that is sadly lacking in most Republicans. But I'm not willing to just take him at his word regarding these statements just because of that. I reserve my right to demand an explanation for this behavior if he wants to campaign for high office.

If Ron Paul really believed that Martin Luther King day was "Hate Whitey Day", and in the newsletter it says he voted against it then why do the files indicate he voted in favor of making it a national holiday?

Maddows facts are all wrong... She should report the truth and not her opinion..

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

Emipop, it doesn't bode well for your position that you are trying to assert it merely by repeating it over and over again.

Copypasta is nothing more than noise.

If you are really a supporter of Ron Paul's libertarian positions and not merely a fan of his cult of personality than you won't feel obliged to come onto a blog and be obnoxious.

Ron Paul needs to account for these statements, either for writing them or for releasing them. Rachel Maddow is presenting the facts.

Nothing could be more ridiculous than demanding "truth," and then trying to make your opinion into fact by saying it over and over again.

Emipop Ron Paul was NOT IN OFFICE IN 1979 NOR DID HE EVER VOTE ON HR 5461

If Ron Paul really believed that Martin Luther King day was "Hate Whitey Day", and in the newsletter it says he voted against it then why do the files indicate he voted in favor of making it a national holiday?

Maddows facts are all wrong... She should report the truth and not her opinion..

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

Yes, and it rings just as hollow now as it did then. Young people continue to be swept up by his anti-militarism (which is great), but it is due diligence to periodically remind people who are probably smart but haven't been paying attention to politics for very long that Ron Paul is a career racist.

If Ron Paul really believed that Martin Luther King day was "Hate Whitey Day", and in the newsletter it says he voted against it then why do the files indicate he voted in favor of making it a national holiday?

Maddows facts are all wrong... She should report the truth and not her opinion..

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

emipop

Ron Paul voted for MLK day in 1979 and then voted against it later on. It's you who needs to get your facts straight

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289

I actually hope Paul or one of the other nut jobs get the nomination. As a democrat, I'm only worried about Huntsman. if he gets the nod, he could take some of the independents from us. Why? because he's the only one of them that's sane.

Good job, Maria Blumberg. The MLK holiday was not signed into law until 1983, during Reagan's presidency. The House voted yes on Vote #289 on August 2, 1983. MLK Day was first observed on January 20, 1986. Ron Paul voted no in 1983.

Previously, on December 5,1979, Congress had voted to amend H.R. 5461, which wanted to establish MLK Day on January 15th. Congress, including Ron Paul, voted yes to establish a possible MLK Day on the third Monday in January, rather than the proposed January 15th of each year. Ron Paul voted yes to change the proposed date. He later voted to not have an MLK holiday at all.

Stop watching Faux News! Ron Paul voted AGAINST having a holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. Paul voted against, I repeat, against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act... If you honestly looked up this "public" information you would know this. Even if Paul did not physically "pen" each and every word in his racists newsletters, he approved of them because he made a huge profit from them. Then this liar even went so far as to admit he knew full well the contents of those newsletters on live TV- CSPAN in 1995... Stop lying for this man and stop believing those lies. As far as Obama, how many politicians do you know that darken the doors of their church every single Sunday? Hmmm... He said he never heard Wright make those statements while in a church service, but after all the publicity and tapes, yeah, he probably heard them then and that's when Pres. Obama distanced himself from that. Paul on the other hand actually had racist, hateful, anti-Semite material publicly published for all to see and for monetary gain! Big Difference!!!

Right after the Jeremiah Wright tapes surfaced, Barack Obama made a very compelling speech about race. And, if you notice in those videos of the Jeremiah wright rantings, there was NO Barack Obama in the audience.

So, why would that make him guilty? It doesn't. It enlightened him enough to separate himself from jeremiah Wright.

As to Ron Paul, if you recall, Rand Paul was on Rachel Maddow's show and basically said that a business man should be able to determine who they serve and that he wasn't in agreement with the Civil Rights Act. He did keep saying he wasn't a racist, but you couldn't have proved it by what he was saying.

And one thing I have learned, the acorns usually don't fall too far from the old oak tree.

and you need to read your link. The one you keep posting, again, and again, and again doesn't say what you claim it says.

This legislation is NOT a Yes/No vote on whether there should or should not be an MLK Day.

Here's the Bill's text, from YOUR LINK, that you apparently HAVE NOT EVEN READ:

TO AMEND H.R. 5461, MARTIN LUTHER KING HOLIDAY, BY DESIGNATING THE THIRD MONDAY IN JANUARY RATHER THAN JANUARY 15 AS THE LEGAL HOLIDAY.

So this was legislation aimed at changing the date.

I don't support acts like those but I do believe in property rights.. Government should not tell you how to run your business and who to allow in it.. Private property, private decisions..

and the truth is if the place is not people friendly "we the people" would boycott it.the company would go bankrupt... so we dont need the government or their laws...

we can manage ourselves =) get off the governments tit and take control =)

yeah, because we did such a bang up job before regulations forced companies to have safer work environments. you must not read much, or just things that support your viewpoint.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city of New York and resulted in the fourth highest loss of life from an industrial accident in U.S. history. It was also the second deadliest disaster in New York City – after the burning of the General Slocum on June 15, 1904 – until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years later. The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers, who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling to their deaths. Most of the victims were recent Jewish and Italian immigrant women aged sixteen to twenty-three;^[1][2][3] the oldest victim was 48, the youngest were two fourteen-year-old girls.^[4] Because the managers had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits, many of the workers who could not escape the burning building jumped from the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors to the streets below. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers.

but you keep supporting an idiot that probably has The Turner Diaries on his bookshelf.

emipop -- What ?? Are you nuts ? If we had no rules for establishments where the public goes to eat or shop or whatever, then who pays when the place collapses in, oh.. an earthquake ??

A lot of what the local governments do is to protect the innocent from such things as "cutting corners" to save money on various health and safety issues. If there were no building codes or health codes, do you REALLY think companies woulkd take the responsibilty on themselves, especially where money is involved ?

And-- even WITH massive food inspections, there are still meats and veggies that get under the radar and sicken or kill people. Do you approve of your child dying because a company is too lazy to care should inspections ever stop ?? Sure, you can sue, but you're still out a child....

/rantoff

Well here's a quandary- How exactly are people supposed to protest the actions of a business if the business is not honest to those actions or if the business has a monopoly on the market? A company like WalMart is not going to go bankrupt from a boycott even if that company slashes all of it's employee's pay to 2$/hr and increases their work week to 60hrs/wk w/o overtime and benefits. Why? Because the majority of rural Americans do not have access to other types of stores in order TO boycott WalMart in the first place. WalMart is not the only company to whom this unique reality exists. Boycotting one oil company- as an example- will not cause it to go bankrupt. Why? Because that company operates internationally and does not need YOU to make profit. So the company can either a) choose to continue operations or b) fire the Americans who work there and move ship. The idea that you somehow have freedom over giant corporations, especially multi-national corporations is ludicrous. Beyond all of this what makes these companies honest in the first place? All WalMart has to say is that it's workers are lying about their lowered wages and their work week. Then whom are you going to believe? If there is no government force to investigate the actions of the company or to hold the company liable should it's actions breach contracts and/or violate other personal rights, where exactly are you thinking people gain the ability to protest/strike the company? If there was no government then BP would not have had to admit anything about the oil spill or indeed attempt to stop the oil spill. So then it would fall on the backs of journalists to report on it and since you've already established that you genuinely don't believe most of the media you would simply dismiss such claims as liberal bias or anti-BP and continue shopping there. So, given this dynamic, I reiterate: how exactly are people supposed to protest the actions of a business if the business is not honest to those actions or if the business has a monopoly on the market?

You are implementing what I like to call "surface logic" or what might be better called "mirage logic." The argument sounds logical from a the surface (or looks logical from a distance), but upon closer examination you realize that there is no foundation on which the logic stands (or upon closer examination you realize that the argument is not at all what it appeared to be from the beginning).

@Mouzer

I would add to your comment about BP and the oil spill is that if there were no government regulation, BP would have done nothing and left the taxpayers with the cleanup bill. That is privatizing the profits and socializing the cost of the damages. It took the much hated EPA to come in and force companies to clean up their pollution created by the "free market" which allowed them to dump noxious chemicals and fumes into lakes, rivers, the ocean, the air. The EPA also forced mining companies to clean up their mess from strip mining that was being done by the "free market." This is just a couple examples of why we need government regulation. You can also see the same need for regulation with food and drugs. The need for government regulation as it relates to civil rights is demonstrated by the block busting that was going on in the 60's where the private sector destroyed neighborhoods.

All of these things interfere in the private sector, but for the benefit of society as a whole. The whole libertarian theory is that the free market takes care of everything including the problems it creates. That is the big fallacy of libertarianism. Hence, we have a lot of laws that regulate the private sector.

@Mike

Exactly. Libertarianism relies on the idea that we live in a utopic reality in which everyone's attempt at acting out of self interest will somehow magically make everyone act out of the best social interest. The only reason why people buy into this crap is because they see our current inefficiencies in government and think "aw hell because it's not working now it never will therefore let's just kill it!" It's a small "r" reactionary way of looking at the world that is based in emotion and short-sightedness.

They see the current inefficiencies of government as an excuse to kill government. But conversely they refuse to see the efficiencies of government like VA health care which is the argument for socializing medicine. The libertarians and Republicans exaggerate the bad parts of government and try to apply it to everything the government does.

That, to me, is the part that I find so genius (strategically), but also so confusing. Republicans (and in many cases Democrats too) constantly defund programs that are running quite well or take money from said programs or strip said programs of their ability to be useful or whatever else it takes to make a program run inefficiently. Then they point to the inefficiency and say "see! it's not working right! therefore we must get rid of it!" So even when we're talking about programs like the VA- the GOP has tried to defund many veteran's programs including the GI Bill. One of the ways the Clinton Administration was able to balance the budget was by cutting benefits to federal workers and military workers which came about primarily as a compromise w/ the Republican Party who had targeted these programs during Clinton's Presidency. But then it is as if people completely forget these instances or don't pay attention to them and then 10 years down the road when the program begins showing huge holes as a result of this legislation everyone acts surprised and points to the program itself as being the problem. This is going on right now w/ the Post Office and Social Security and Medicare. All of these programs were working just fine until legislative and financial tricks were used to undercut these programs, their operations, and their funding. Now all the sudden we're screaming "ah they're broke! so we must end them!" when in reality these programs would have been fine had that legislation never been proposed. Who pushed these proposals? By and large Republicans (although many conservadems went along w/ them and even some liberal Democrats. Argh).

This is going on right now w/ the Post Office and Social Security and Medicare. All of these programs were working just fine until legislative and financial tricks were used to undercut these programs, their operations, and their funding.

LOL,

Although really, come on now, SS and the post office were totally fine?

Who the (*F*) uses the post office anymore anyways? Bastards are slow as crap, lines take forever, service is terrible, and more expensive than FedEx or UPS. That's why they've been loosing money hand over fist. To suggest that the post office somehow sucks due to the republicans is nothing more than a liberal attempt at brainwashing those whom do not understand the general dynamic of an evolving business environment.

The post office has recently made a come back, and I will admit that the last time I sent something it did in fact make it there on time but it was still expensive as hell. They've done a great job with their latest marketing campaign and I'll give them that.

With that being said, why in the world would you even want the federal government funding a government social enterprise and competing directly with private industry? That makes zero logical sense. So not only do they have the power to regulate and tax the industry but they also have a vested interest in eliminating the competition; but yet they still have an obligation to remain neutral. Please, with all due respect, explain your ideology behind allowing government the ability to compete directly with private businesses and how that somehow makes your life better.

Got a few friends from Canada who are doctors. They've since become citizens of the US and or have made sure that their children are US citizens so that they can eventually have a chance to keep more of their money. Those social programs do actually cost you money; progressive taxation simply to fund those social programs will mean you in turn make less money. Talk to people whom live in Canada for a few hours. I'll bet you they don't share your same ideologies.

And lets just not even talk about this issue of SS and Medicare being perfectly fine. They've been screwed up for years. Even Clinton recognized the issues facing both social programs when he took office. You liberals often credit him when talking about who saved them for the rest of us back when he "balanced the budget" as you guys like to claim so often. Even your good ol' boy Jimmy Carter admitted those programs were jacked up and needed to be fixed.

Pretending things were perfectly fine doesn't mean that you have the right to shift the blame to whomever you choose when you decide to finally admit there's a problem. Which from what I've read it sounds like you actually admit that they're still jacked up, so that's a start. If they're jacked up why not at least allow for an opt out?

There's not a libertarian out there that has a problem with funding social programs. In fact all of my libertarian buddies, myself included, think that most social programs are fantastic elements within society and have the potential to make America a better place to live. How to fund them is really the only point of contention. So your basis for claiming that all republicans and libertarians ever want to accomplish is the tearing down of these social programs is, in essence, a logical fallacy.

Who uses the post office?

Uh, EVERYONE?

Does DHL deliver your phone bill? How exactly does UPS get into your mailbox, legally? I've never seen anyone go into a store and ask for FedEx stamps so they can mail a letter.

I don't know anyone who's sent a postcard or Christmas card or birthday card via FedEx.

I wasn't aware that UPS now handles designating zip codes.

If you move, do you fill out a form with FedEx, DHL, or UPS to get your mail forwarded?

The post office in my part of the world (southern Virginia) is just lovely thank you very much. They are neither bastards nor slow as crap. The service has always been excellent and the delivery efficient. Maybe the way you're treated when you get there has something to do with your own attitude about them.

Also, you are completely, utterly dead-wrong about Canada. I do love however the favourite-among-conservative "some of my friends are Canadian so clearly I can lecture you about how the entire country feels" schtick. The very fact that your friends choose to become American citizens should be indication enough that they DO NOT represent Canadians. Why do folks who believe as you do always get that wrong? I AM a Canadian (living in the US temporarily because of hubby's work) and wouldn't give up Canada for anything. Yes, we pay more in taxes. Truly, most of us don't care. No one LOVES paying taxes but the vast majority of us recognize that it's worth it. If we hated it so much, if we (as you seem to suggest) don't share the "liberal" ideology, then why, when given a chance a few years ago, to choose "The Greatest Canadian", we chose Tommy Douglas, the man who championed the cause of universal healthcare for all Canadians back in the 50s?

Does DHL deliver your phone bill? How exactly does UPS get into your mailbox, legally? I've never seen anyone go into a store and ask for FedEx stamps so they can mail a letter.

No, you're absolutely right. They drive around in those small jeeps to get everyone on the planet their mail. You're the exact person I was referencing about having been brainwashed into believing this crap about republicans destroying a government social enterprise like the post office.

Now that I've gotten that out of my system; YES actually FedEx, UPS, DHL, Emory World Wide, CSX, and a few others all pitch in to transport mail for the postal service. While you may not see this transport take place and it's not advertised the U.S. Postal Service does not transport mail to other distribution facilities unless it resides within a certain radius. Outside of that radius they contract out transportation services via air, land, and rail for both domestic and international. So while you may not outwardly ask for FedEx stamps to mail your letter, you really are in a way arn't you? I mean you've already paid FedEx to throw your letter on a plane and fly it accross country every time to you buy a roll of stamps.

Beyond that the post office has been hit with the papperless bug. Who delivers your phone bill? really? I haven't received an actual papper "bill" since about 2004. Now that I think about it I can't think of a single service provider that doesn't at least have an option for you to receive notification either online or through email. Credit card, auto, insurance, banking, Phone....honestly all of my "bills" are now virtual. So what exactly does the post office deliver to my mail box again? Lets all say it together JUNK MAIL. That's right yesterdays spam is exactly what you continue to get so that the post office can continue to exist.

So why do we need the postal service? Would your mail be any less likely to make it to your mail box if it were left entirely up to UPS, FedEx, or DHL?

I agree. Not presidential and certainly politically unwise. As far as a nuclear armed Iran what would you have him say at the negotiation table? It is OK for the US and Israel and North Korea to have these arms but not you? I am all for total disarmament but fair is fair.

I believe WMD in general are a hideous waste of any society's treasure.

Russia and the US have reduced their stockpiles of deliverable nuclear warheads. It's not just good showmanship, it makes good sense. Nuclear weapons programs are hideously expensive. While the number of deliverable warheads worldwide could one day be zero, I don't think it ever will be.

I see Iran's nuke program in much the same light as I see Pakistan's. I think the people most endangered by Iran's program are Iranians. The diversion of resources into their weapons program is stunting their growth as a country. When they finally do have an assembled weapon (and I believe this is inevitable) that weapon will be more likely to be used in a violent overthrow of an Iranian regime than against another country. I truly believe the Iranians are better off without nukes.

My wish for the Iranians is the same as my wish for the US. National treasure is better spent improving the lives of that nation's people than on ridiculous weapons of a bygone era.

Agree it is a waste of money. But saying because you belong to this group and we belong another group, we have rights to these weapons and you do not is in a way racist. Rights don't come from the group to which you belong. Rights are individual.

I agree that this could be handled better. As per the courts of the media, Obama handled the Jeremiah Wright issue the right way. He did a 180 in a 4 day period, but in that speech he did fess up to witnessing Wright make racial (and other controversial) comments. Obama had some great words in that speech despite contradicting his prior recent statements...

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change."

I love it when people don't even read comments on a blog, but instead just scroll all the way down to the bottom to post a comment that has already been addressed w/in the thread (multiple times) and then, simultaneously w/in said post, attack everyone else for not reading through or having their facts straight. Le sighs.

It's been pointed out several times above that you're wrong. There were two DIFFERENT votes, one in 1979, and then one in 1983. Here is the bill for MLK Day that actually became law in 1983.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289

Notice that Paul voted NO on that one.

PolitiFact was noting that that Yes vote he made in 1979 (on changing the proposed date, not whether we should have the holiday) is NOT consistent with his supposed "small government" principle.