I don't have the context, so I don't know how to interpret it.

EDIT: Sensing that I was being a pain in the ass, I googled it to see if I could find the context. :) I didn't, but I found Ron Paul's response when he was asked about it:

Okay, Ron Paul is innocent in this case, assuming he didn't read the work going out under his own name. On to the intellectual debate!

You say you need context to decide whether the author was being racist. I assert that it is racist in any context. Can you give an example of a context that passage might be in that would render it non-racist?

BTW: Extra credit for doing it in a piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM"

Once you've done that, see how closely your work matches the actual context:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5

Can you honestly vote for a man who would allow that to go out under his own name? Or alternatively, can you honestly vote for a man who allows things to go out under his own name when he has no idea what is being said in them?

[edit: Also:
"Moreover, the L.A. riots article does in fact bear some evidence of having been written by Paul, at least in part. (For example, the article relates the observations of one Burt Blumert, who is labeled "expert Burt Blumert" but who is actually just a gold coin and bullion dealer in San Francisco who happens to be a longtime personal friend of... Ron Paul.)"
[ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740 ]

@ Final-Fan
A bit touchy, eh? If cutting spending is so important to you, then why is it so much of your passion is devoted to defending increasing the taxing power of government?

Let’s start with the last tax cut. Bush signed it into law May 28, 2003.

And now let’s look at receipts of each fiscal year since then against GDP.
03 Total Receipts: $1,969B GDP: 10,828B = 18.2%           16.5%  (OMB)
04 Total Receipts: $2,034B GDP: 11,712B = 17.3%           16.3%  (OMB)
05 Total Receipts: $2,287B GDP: 12,042B = 18.4%           17.5%  (OMB Est)
06 Total Receipts: $2,537B GDP: 12,641B = 19.4%           17.5%  (OMB Est)
07 Total Receipts: $2,709B GDP: 13,543B = 20.0% (Est)   17.6% (OMB Est)

Since you won’t allow me to use my nutso economists as sources, I resorted to using data from the IRS. (I guess I wouldn’t have to if I was able to use the smart, sophisticated economists you turn to. Let me guess, Krugman?)  I also added the percentages from the Office and Management Budget.  The post war average is about 17.9%.

Sure the rate drops in ’04, but would you give them at least one year to take effect? It’s not as if signing a bill works like a light switch. What’s even more stunning is that this was achieved during a period of war and dramatic increases in fuel costs.

We could go through the same exercise in the 80’s, the 60’s, and the 20’s. Shall we make it a game where you pick the decade? Maybe we could look at the inverse when taxes were increased?

Look at corporate taxes. In 1985 the Brits were the first to kick off what turned into a tidal wave of corporate tax cuts across the West (those other nations needed to stay competitive, no?) When you look at the 20 or so countries that cut their rates, the results are stunning. Some cut there rates by a third, while others slashed them by nearly a half. The result is the same. Receipts as a percentage of GDP went up remarkably. OK, OK many of those countries also reduced the depreciation corps could claim (a tax shield, but you already knew that). But the results have been the same even after the impact of depreciation is phased out.

Well, of course the tax base would need to increase! What do you think economic growth does? Yet you are skeptical that tax cuts could some how contribute to that growth? I give up!

I’ve already said that my first preference would be to cut spending. I’ve simply challenged your proposition that raising taxes to reduce the debt is the better alternative if we must spend like drunken sailors. And yes, the debt went up dramatically over the last seven years. Embarrassingly so. But it was the spending side that drove it, not mythical declines in tax receipts.

As far as how severe US debt is on a relative basis, here is a sampling:
2005 Debt vs GDP
US 75%
Denmark 204%
Canada 48% (go Canucks!)
France 155%
Germany 156%
Spain 88%
Sweden 194%
Belgium 302% (and top income tax rate is 50%! Ouch)
Norway 159%
Swiss 350%
Britain 394%

You can wax on into infinitum about the joys of tax increases, but if you really want to keep this nightmare from reaching the US, run away from any candidate advocating government solutions to societal problems. Any candidates pushing a program beginning with the word “universal” is a good start.

@Final-Fan
"As it turns out, not only have Republicans (starting with Reagan) increased the debt more (way more) than Republicans -- they've increased spending more too! LAWL."

Firstly, a little redundant. Of course the debt went up while spending increased. There is something of a cause and effect there.

Secondly, try putting a similar chart together but rather then breaking it down by party in the White House, try breaking it down by party in control of Congress. You see, there's this itty bitty role Congress plays when it comes to passing spending bills. Or would that not help your point?

Calling Ron Paul a racist is a bit extreme especially if its basis is a statment from a pamphlet a decade and a half old that was supposedly written by someone else. The guy has been in the public arena for quite a while now. If there were really a problem here, I'd think we would have seen more examples of it by now. Especially from a guy who frequently talks off-the-cuff. Again, I'm not a Ronulan or anything, but give the guy a break on this one. If he's guilty of anything it's his ineptitude in dealing with public relations. Hardly an unforgivable sin.

Does all this stuff come off Kos or something?

Did you actually read the piece?  I'm still sifting through it.

Ron Paul on Meet the Press: 22nd of December, 2007

I've finished reading, and I no longer care whether it was written by Paul or not. It is not a racist piece.

Here is the quote, with emphasis added by you:

Aside from the first 95% of the piece preceding this quote, here's what the quote is missing, the very next sentence:

You said that the author singled out blacks and said that they had done terrible things to cities across America. This is true, it's called the LA riots. Your next statement, that the author is saying that all blacks are terrorists or potential terrorists, is not true. The author is stating that many white people will come to this conclusion, which he calls unfair, based on what happened during the LA riots.

So, there's the context in which it isn't racist.

I might as well continue for the other quotes posted. Here is the next quote:

And here is the original quote, without the snip cut out where the "...." is. The bold part is the part that was cut out:

Without the missing part, it looks like the author is just spouting crap from his ass. With the missing part, you can see that the author is using a statistic from the NCIA that 85% of blacks are arrested at some point in their lives, and assuming that another 10% of them have commited crimes and not been arrested -- these are the "inefficiencies in the D.C. criminal justice system."

The next quote is verbatim, and immediately follows the above paragraph in the piece. But again, when you read the preceding paragraph with no parts omitted, you can see that the author is not bashing blacks; he is talking about crime statistics.

Like I said, the "Ron Paul is a racist" people need to come up with something better. Because this is an obvious load of BS.