The credibility of Paul's denials of being the author of the racist rants in his newsletters is undermined, however, by his campaign's refusal to return a $500 donation from Don Black, an avowed white supremacist, after the donation -- contained in a campaign finance report on file with the Federal Election Commission -- was made public on December 18 by The Associated Press.
Campaign spokesman Benton told the AP that the Texas congressman's camp doesn't monitor who its donors are -- nor does it return donations from donors deemed controversial. "Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights," he said.
"If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money,"Benton insisted. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom -- and that's $500 less that this guy [Black] has to do whatever it is that he does."
Black, a former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. "We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black -- who runs a white-supremacist Web site and said he's been a "white patriot" for more than 30 years -- told the Palm Beach Post.
Paul, who finished a distant fifth in last week's New Hampshire GOP primary, has nevertheless become an Internet phenomenon in the current race for the Republican nomination -- much like Howard Dean on the Democratic side four years ago -- raising tens of millions of dollars from a devoted online voter base, many of them young people drawn to his libertarian views on social issues and his outspoken opposition to the Iraq war.
Unlike Dean, however, this isn't Paul's first run for the White House: He previously ran in 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party while remaining a registered Republican. The most striking difference between the Texas congressman and his GOP rivals is his advocacy of a "non-interventionist" foreign policy, a position long associated with the Libertarian Party and denounced by his rivals as isolationist.
Neo-Nazi Claims Paul Is a 'Closeted' White Nationalist
But if the controversy over the racist newsletters and support from white supremacists wasn't bad enough for Paul, the candidate has a much more serious public-relations problem that could destroy his political career, let alone his White House candidacy: Claims by the avowed neo-Nazi Bill White that the congressman is a "closeted" white nationalist himself.
"I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble," White wrote in a statement posted on the Vanguard News Network Web site. "However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism."
White claims that "Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet" with members of several far-right "white nationalist" groups, including "the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others" at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, "usually on Wednesdays."
The American National Socialist Workers Party leader branded as "ridiculous" dismissals by Paul's aides of white nationalism as a "small ideology" and that white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence the candidate. "Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position," White insisted.
"I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to 'expose' this," White continued. "However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him [Paul] to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable. . .is outrageous."
Ex-Klansman Duke Endorses Paul -- But Says He Should 'Defend Whites More'
The "Stormfront" that White referred to in his posting is a white-supremacist Web site, which welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community." The site, which bears the motto, "White Pride World Wide" on its home page, was founded and is operated by Black.
Black and fellow ex-Klansman Duke co-anchor an Internet-only radio show, "Stormfront Radio," on the site. In their latest Webcast, now online, Black and Duke discuss "What Ron Paul Must Do to Win." There's an interesting twist in their partnership in white nationalism: Black is married to Duke's ex-wife, Chloe Hardin, who divorced Duke in 1984.
In a posting on Stormfront's discussion page, Duke also endorsed Paul, declaring that his campaign "is good for America and the political process."
I'm a native of New York City who's called the Green Mountain state of Vermont home since the summer of 1994. A former freelance journalist, I'm a fiercely independent freethinker who's highly skeptical of authority figures -- especially when they're on the wrong side of the issues I care about. But I'm not afraid to also call into question those with whom I would usually be "on the same page" if and when they, too, are on the wrong side of the issues I care about.
Given this breadth of support, it is not surprising there's some bad apples in the mix of supporters. Their views do not reflect those of Dr Paul. He is a champion of individual rights regardless of race or religion.
by
Brian Horsfield (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 11:27:56 AM
Ron Paul is a right-wing Christian fundamentalist fanatic. Facts don't lie. I remember when you ruling-class dupes tried this same thing with Beau Gritz. You can takae your Jim Hightowers and your Ann Richardses and your Ron Pauls and shove them up Hillary KKKlinton's bombsites. Rmember the Who: "We won't get fooled again!"
by
Farrell Winter (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 10:07:55 PM
The Denial Among Ron Paul Supporters is Utterly Astounding
As I write this comment, it's been just over 15 hours since I posted my article -- at my own site, at OpEdNews.com and at other sites on my blog network -- and to say that I struck a nerve would be an understatement.
With a few exceptions, the reaction from Ron Paul supporters so far has, for the most part, been a mass exercise in denial, denial and more denial -- an appalling unwillingness to face the truth about the man they so deeply admire, despite the fact that my article includes links to the very white-supremacist Web sites that have embraced Paul's candidacy.
But all that denial will not make the truth go away.
Most of the comments have, unfortunately, been incoherent screeds that employ very incendiary language that I'm not going to waste bandwidth responding to. They speak volumes about what kind of people Paul's campaign is attracting.
by
Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 12:08:32 PM
You call it truth; I call it circumstantial evidence.
Your haughty attitude helps to doom us all.
Paul is not as you condemn yet you perpetuate your weak arguments.
Are you so ill informed that you are not aware of our current crisis?
We do not have much longer before there is no hope of saving America. When Rome fell, not a Roman on the street knew it had happened. Only 100 years later was it evident. Today we have access to a global scope of information and there are those that are aware of the impending doom.
I do not understand whether you are contrary out of arrogance or ignorance but you help to sell us all in to slavery.
America will not be conquered by armies; we will be sold to our enemies.
I pity your Mentally Miniscule Ability For Reason. You obviously lack the ability to evaluate on the basis of a greater data set.
When the end comes, know what you have helped to achieve for your children.
by
Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 199 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 3:25:16 PM
Everyone. Do your own research. Look at your own lives. Remember who you may or may not have crossed paths with. Condemn if you will. Forgive if you choose.
Those that thrown stones.............
peace
by
mikel paul (11 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 442 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 12:51:55 PM
Once again the Paulites show how they treat dissent, skepticism, and the examination of their candidate in light of the surfacing information. The 'Second Coming of Paul' disciples see their prophet as pope too -in that he is infallible! Instead of a satisfactory explanation by Paul or his supporters -the attacks and accusations fly... How dare he be held responsible for an explanation asks a majority of cultish, insecure, and ostentatious bullies? You are either with us, or with the terrorists. Sound familiar?
People should certainly be free to criticize and question Dr. Paul. He's a candidate. It's the 'hot' seat. There is a controversy begging for an explanation in a broader context! The whole newsletter issue is HIS own fault for not exercising a bit of diligence about material being disseminated with his name on it -it is negligence on his behalf to say the least. And recently there's seems to be an added dimension of difficulty rising that supports the initial concerns. He's no victim of identity theft! I, personally, would have raised an outrageous amount of hell about that sort of thing going on in anything that had my name attributed to it -especially if I were a politician! He doesn't seem too concerned about it. He doesn't seem too bothered by accepting money and praise from reprobates either. I, personally, would not for the same reasons I wouldn't shake their hands. When you lie down with swine , the mud on your clothes needn't be blamed on others slinging it at you...
Taken in the larger context of his stances, record, and statements -these interesting new facts bring to the surface troubling questions that he and his supporters, so far, have been unwilling or unable to satisfactorily answer or address:
Could there be more to his opposition to the Civil Rights Act? Or stance against Civil Unions? Were there deeper reasons for his statements about the Civil War? What about voting against the Voters Rights renewal?
The common thread and the underlying effect of these questions should be of major concern. They are troubling to say the least!
These should be legitimate concerns to the Paul supporters and (those like me) people who remain completely unconvinced by the repetitive mantras of his droning loyalists. We are redirected time and again to look at his 'record' -well, I'd argue that this is part of that 'record' that needs to be addressed to the satisification of all concerned voters.
His explanation doesn't absolve him for anyone not in his camp but, instead, makes them wonder if there's more to it than he's willing to discuss... seems more and more like Bush's brushing off of certain personal issues during his first campaign for President.
I don't think it's a diversion at all to want to know more about these things. Most people are fairly competent in the ability to not let the other issues become eclipsed by this, yet it's foolish to pretend that only the issues that Dr. Paul's supporters say are the most important would be held in the same regards all across the board and therefore are the only ones with a place in any discussion. There appears to be a concentrated effort by Paul supporters to divert voters' criticisms or even the valid questioning of this controversy or any of his policies by merely dismissing the underlying concerns as a smear or non-issue undeserving of attention.
Seen that film before too.
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 2:09:11 PM
Reactions of Hard-Core Paulites Reminiscent of LaRouchies
My earlier comment about the incoherence and vulgarity of the responses by many Ron Paul supporters has been confirmed by the high numbers of comments that have been flagged and deleted.
It's sadly reminiscent of the rabid fanaticism of the followers of Lyndon LaRouche in the 1980s.
by
Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments)
on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 2:03:32 AM
You have stated that we should not trust Dr. Paul because racist people support him; but then Crowbait states that character witnesses, such as the head of the Austin NAACP, don't cut it. So we should only pay attention to the 'bad' people that may associate with him or his campaign, not the 'good' people?
What kind of logic dictates that only negative associations are valid? How is anyone supposed to frame a response to your argument?
by
Susan Moody (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 3:04:26 PM
Character witnesses have little impact in a court of law and little or none to me.
The burden of proof is on Dr. Paul and his supporters to explain why his stances/positions in the BIGGER context (that is to say, cumulatively) should not be seen as racially motivated -especially given all the new material that has been uncovered... as a matter of fact, I've never met a white supremist who wasn't ideologically aligned with the Right and would argue that most Republicans are closeted bigots/elitists as well. Policy points to 'Yes'.
For me and the majority of people who 'think', it takes more than someone 'vouching' for someone to prove he's not what he seems. Like I said before, Dr. Paul and his supporters have offered no satisfactory explanation regarding these details and the questions they raise. Paulites seem overwhelmingly in 'denial' about what everything's pointing to. Until then, well... seems obvious to me.
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 3:26:33 PM
You're basing your decision on information which was either, in regards to the newsletter, old or, in the case of the donations, incidental. I'm basing my decisions on the cumulative work that Dr. Paul has produced over the course of his career. I haven't seen any 'new' material, just these two instances repeated. With regard to your knowledge of racists and Republicans, I was raised in rural Mississippi and I knew racists of many ideologies, political leanings and levels of intellect. They tend to be individuals, just like everybody else.
I will note that by stating ' For me and the majority of people who 'think', it takes more than someone 'vouching' for someone to prove he's not what he seems', you imply that anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint is not thinking. That's a pretty harsh implication to make just because someone disagrees with you. It's also very brave of you to speak on behalf of the majority of people who think.
With regard to Dr. Paul and his supporters not offering a satisfactory explanation, what would you consider an acceptable explanation?
Perhaps the supporters who continue to support Dr. Paul aren't in denial, they've looked at all the information and come to a different conclusion than you. Individuals are entitled to individual opinions, after all.
by
Susan Moody (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 5:43:39 PM
Also, the point is that neither Paul nor his supporters have explained his positons now that they are seen in the greater context of what could be underlying racist motivations. The Paul movement is strangely silent on this or claiming smear tactics. I'd say they are at a loss to explain what appears to be extremely incrimidating evidence mounting that there is an ulterior motive in many of his more questionable positions of record (which I pointed out earlier). Claiming there's a witchhunt because skeletons are found in your closet doesn't remove the responsibilty for adequate explanation to your supporters or others who are interested in this election. I'd really like to see the troubling aspects of this answered clearly in relation to how his other positions reflect possible racist interests.
He's free to take money from who he chooses to accept it from -though I'd caution him to be more discretionary. Like I've already stated, when you choose to lie down with swine, you needn't attribute the mud you rise with to anyone slinging it at you.
Maybe that's not what matters to you when you choose to stand behind someone and that's fine too -though it takes a great deal more for me to sign on...
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 11:30:33 PM
I'll refer you to the one by me entitled 'Good Article, Skeeter' -which asks the questions you seem to be ignoring or have all the secret answers to that you're unable or unwilling to share.
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Monday, January 14, 2008 at 11:36:06 PM
On the basis of something written over ten years ago, you want Dr. Paul and his supporters to justify his positions since then in relation to possible racial motivations, but you don't accept his explanation so far. I ask the original question again, what explanation would suffice for you? How am I claiming this is a witchhunt? I'm asking you to clarify what you would consider an acceptable answer.
Also I take issue with your continuing hostility to anyone that disagrees with you, no one has to have secret answers to have a different point of view; they just reached a different conclusion on the basis of what is available. Your snide comments regarding people who support Dr. Paul do not help your argument; you come off looking as intractable as Dr. Paul's supporters are portrayed.
Overall, a statist view believes that individual states would primarily govern themselves; are you implying that the only thing keeping the US from adopting racial or right-wing policies is the Federal government? That every state has a majority of racists just waiting to enact hateful laws at the first opportunity? Or are you saying that Dr. Paul is working on a hidden racist agenda that will come into play as soon as he's given power? Could you define your fear exactly?
As a final comment, what matters to me when I choose someone to stand behind is how that person treats other people, as individuals and as a whole. Dr. Paul, throughout his career, has treated people as adults; he tells you what he thinks and you make up your mind. He doesn't try to change your mind or tell you you're right or wrong, because he believes you have the right to be an individual. He believes the US as a whole is founded on the principles of liberty and justice for all, not just the people he agrees with, but all people. There are always going to be people you disagree with, but if you stop them from saying what they believe in, what right do you have to speak?
by
Susan Moody (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 3:45:03 AM
The Federal Government has nothing to do with this.
I ask for Paul's stances (in relation to his cumulative record -which I've pointed out several times the troubling aspects of when held up against allegations of closeted racism) to be explained... Given that they affect primarily blacks it certainly gives the appearance that there's more at play here. It's real simple.
Now, if you'd been a member here for any period of time longer than the majority of the influx of Paulites (who've over-run the site with their coarse manner of dismissing anything critical of their candidate and slung insults to high hell at everyone who's tried to discuss him) you'd have the credibility to critique my demeanor based on my overall participation here instead of these lovely Paul threads where his supporters simply can't provide anything relevant to the discussion at hand... If I am less than civil about it, might I suggest that some of the more distasteful elements have finally worn off on me? However, I will say you're not quite the rude type of commentor that has been the basis of my complaint about the majority in representation on this site. Yourself and a handful of others can at least engage at the standard level of interaction even if I'm left without anything characteristic of an answer on this one.
At any rate, how many times can I re-ask the same flippin' questions and get absolutely nothing?
Apparently a lot.
I'm done on this thread. The timer's run out.
We'll call him a 'duck'.
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 7:26:04 AM
The only 'explanation' I've seen here, is that the articles were written a long time ago by someone else. He justifies taking money from scum because he doesn't seem to care where it comes from. It's a conspiracy that prominent White Supremists endorse him and his policies. We should believe that all the allegations are false because he 'says so'.
Yet, how can we be assured that this is not true based on the controversial statements he's made and stances he has taken on issues that have affected mostly blacks??? An acceptable answer would explain that -though I admit, I'll have a real hard time swallowing it if it doesn't come off pretty damn clean... which may be why it's left unanswered, I suppose.
Sorry, to come off so snotty before... I wish you had taken part in more discussions during your membership, then we might be able to make sense of each others' position on these things. Somehow, we don't seem to be reaching each other... am I demanding too much?
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 7:46:32 AM
Sorry I haven't been vocal before now, I tend to read extensively but the Dr. Paul saga has been the first time I felt compelled to actually write about something.
With regard to the newsletters, any answer he gives will be judged by you as an individual and if it's not good enough so be it. With regard to the donations, you state clearly that character witnesses don't cut it, but aren't these donations negative character witnesses? If you castigate him for donations from right-wingers are you obligated to view his donations from other, more positve, supporters as balance?
I can't understand how letting individual states run themselves is a bad thing. Even in a worst case scenario, Dr. Paul is a racist and has right-wing supporters, how does that denigrate in any way the overarching view of statist politics. His views and those of the racists who support him are only their individual views, no more important than any other individual views. So unless there is a majority of racists in every state there is no problem.
by
Susan Moody (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 8:27:34 AM
Thank you for taking the time to reason with Crowbait. I've enjoyed your excellent responses.
Crowbait, I know you're intelligent, but when you talk about "these lovely Paul threads where his supporters simply can't provide anything relevant to the discussion at hand," your intelligence becomes invisible. As a matter of fact, Paul's supporters have provided more relevent insights, links, and educational matter than you have the patience to examine.
I am not bothered by the fact that white supremicists give Ron Paul money. Think for a moment of the vast character deficiencies in the American people at large, and you will realize that odious people of all varieties give money to all campaigns, and you can't judge a candidate by the invariable faction of weirdos who will gravitate to him or her. Murderers, communists, pedaphiles, haters of all stripes, cultists, closet terrorists...you name it, they are giving money.
It DOES bother me that Ron Paul let these newsletters go out under his name, although I am not seeing the pure racism that others see. When I read that he or his ghost writer mentioned how "the riots only stopped when the rioters went to pick up their welfare checks," I saw that as a slight againt rioters, not blacks. The rioters, if they had jobs, should have been at work and not rioting in the streets. If they had no more pressing concerns than rioting, they probably WERE on welfare. It seems a logical conclusion. Still, all things considered, there WAS still a breech of discretion on his part, whether he wrote or failed to edit those controversial remarks.
The fact that Ron Paul accepts NO money from lobbyists should win your approval. He cannot be bought; he votes on principle. The fact that he would release thousands of blacks from jail, who are unfairly penalized for non-violent drug use in a racist judicial system, should register in your consciousness. The fact that he is telling the truth about the war, our economy, and our loss of liberties through the Patriot Act, although he pays dearly for it, makes him a hero to some people. Supporting Ron Paul is nothing to be ashamed of.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 3:34:09 PM
Thanks for taking time to respond to our comments.
The point I'm trying to make, is one of principle. He could avoid the controversy if he was willing. I wouldn't take a cent of those shitbags' donations nor would I shake their fucking hands or speak a word of kindness or civility to them -otherwise, twenty years of fighting against them fist, foot, and knuckle (subsequent jailtime, hospitalizations, and a plethora of other consequences ensuing) wou
