Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Life may not be exactly pleasant, but it is at least not dull. Heave yourself into Hell today, and you may miss, tomorrow or next day, another Scopes trial, or another War to End War, or perchance a rich and buxom widow with all her first husband's clothes. There are always more Hardings hatching. I advocate hanging on as long as possible.”     H. L. Mencken

October 11, 2007

An Endorsement Ron Paul Should Repudiate Immediately

by Doug Mataconis

Any campaign that wants to be taken seriously has the problem of supporters who they can’t control. Often you can just ignore them, but sometimes you just need to to tell them to go to hell.

For the Ron Paul campaign, this is one of those times:

Stormfront, for those of you who don’t know, is a white supremacist racist organization who has latched onto the Paul candidacy for it’s own purposes.

H/T: QandO

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/11/an-endorsement-ron-paul-should-repudiate-immediately/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

96 Comments

  1. That’s it you’ve outdone yourself today. You know what would be better than this group disassociating itself from Ron Paul if you disassociated yourself from Ron Paul. Do you spend every waking hour trying to find all the negatives on Ron Paul? Why don’t you gather the real dirt behind the other candidates, who have very shady pasts. Ron Paul can’t control who supports him.

    Comment by Will M — October 11, 2007 @ 9:09 am
  2. Dude, calm down. I really have to agree that Dr. Paul needs to make himself seem less of a fringe candidate, and an endoursement from a white supremecist group might do just the opposite. Paul has to be careful. He’s the ferret in the viper pit.

    Comment by Kurt — October 11, 2007 @ 9:14 am
  3. A-f’ing-men Will.

    Comment by oilnwater — October 11, 2007 @ 9:15 am
  4. Nice hit piece Doug. A underhanded way of pointing out something that does not need to be. No candidate should have to stumble all over themselves to find and repudiate every ‘bad’ supporter. But I guess you find it important to find such supporters yourself. Did you e-mail the campaign beforehand asking them for a statement? And what is this about supporters finding a candidate that helps them meet their ends? Unheard of!

    Comment by James Aragon — October 11, 2007 @ 9:21 am
  5. James,

    What obligation do I have to ask for a comment ?

    I’m not a journalist and don’t claim to be. I just happen to think that the campaign needs to disassociate itself from its crazier supporters.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 11, 2007 @ 9:26 am
  6. Did you know that Stormfront loves this blog? Don’t you think you should do something about that?

    Comment by Rick Fisk — October 11, 2007 @ 9:27 am
  7. hey – the Communist party endorses Hillary don’t they?

    Comment by Joe B — October 11, 2007 @ 9:27 am
  8. Doug,

    Find me a serious journalistic piece which has actually used one of these crazies to smear Paul and maybe then I’ll share your anxiety about stuff like this. As Paul becomes more mainstream (in terms of recognition, not by shifting his views) fringe supporters like this will work themselves further into the margins. I’m not very concerned.

    Comment by Isaac — October 11, 2007 @ 9:31 am
  9. Scratch that last part. Maybe I should be a bit more concerned when the only people I see digging up stuff like this are people who I would otherwise expect to be supporting him…

    Comment by Isaac — October 11, 2007 @ 9:33 am
  10. Why should I care if they’re a bunch of raving racists? It’s their right, isn’t it? So long as they aren’t using government to achieve their agenda, if we are truly libertarians we must allow them their silly beliefs. Right?

    What’s the big deal? Blah blah blah …

    Comment by bret — October 11, 2007 @ 9:36 am
  11. Isaac,

    I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 11, 2007 @ 9:36 am
  12. Actually her video isn’t all that bad if you take out the white nationalist stuff. When she goes over the issues that Ron Paul believes the same as she does she never once mentions racist/white supremecist type issues.

    If it was some other group with an identical video without the mention of being a white nationalist it would probably stand out as a pretty decent video.

    Comment by TerryP — October 11, 2007 @ 9:39 am
  13. Maybe we should ban voting for all the politically incorrect freaks? But wait, maybe after that we should disenfranchise useless eaters and entitlement recipients and then those who don’t own land, oh oh! The truth is none of us own land, we lease it all from the government and need permission to do anything with it. Then what about government employees? Why should they vote especially if their jobs are on the line? Ok so why vote, just let the alphabet soup agencies use administrative laws to decide what is best for us, as they do now and while they ignore all constitutional restraints both in the country and the states. I think there’s a lot of nutty people, myself included, but I’m still going to vote for who I believe in, whether thaey want me too of not. Paul was asked a question by a reporter today if he would accept an endorsement for POTUS Bush, he flatly ststed “No”. He is a principled man, always was and always will be and he he believes in Individual rights, then skinheads have the exact same rights as blacks, browns or gays, no more and no less. What part of Equal can’t some of you out there understand?

    Comment by RAY K — October 11, 2007 @ 9:44 am
  14. Doug,

    Seriously…unless somebody makes a stink about in the mainstream press, why bother? Taking the effort to condemn these guys just gives them more publicity, which is what they crave more than Ron Paul in office. 90% of the American public couldn’t tell you who Stormfront is and until the endorsement becomes an issue in the campaign why even bother to discuss it? Why not just ignore it? This is very different from the Alex Jones situation, where Paul actually went on Jones’ show…this is just a random group of assholes endorsing a candidate they have no apparent affiliation with, and if Paul wastes time going after them it only serves to further marginalize him in the debates by getting him caught up in a needless sideshow.

    I understand your need to balance realism with support for Paul’s campaign, but why do you constantly have to search for this crap when nobody else is and Paul’s obviously not involved?

    Comment by UCrawford — October 11, 2007 @ 9:44 am
  15. Crawford,

    If the campaign ever does seriously take off, these are the kinds of things that will make it into the mainstream press eventually.

    Heck, if the NY Times can put out a front page article talking about Rudy Giuliani’s old radio show on WABC, then they’ll sure do an article on this if they think it’s worth writing about.

    Also, it highlights what I’ve said more than once about the fact that there are elements out there supporting the campaign that the campaign doesn’t have control over which are not making the best impression on people.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 11, 2007 @ 9:47 am
  16. Do you think that, if Paul becomes a more serious, more overt threat, that any of the top contenders for the presidency won’t dig this stuff up? This support from a racist group, coupled with things Dr. Paul has allegedly written (which he claims he didn’t write) in the past, will become his own personal iceberg.

    Ron Paul has smart, capable people working on his campaign. He has a huge, loyal following. He’s injected excitement into the sort of election that has, in the past, been conducted with all the intensity of an old married couple sexing it up in the bedroom. It would be a shame to throw it all away because of shadowy supporters. Clinton could bounce back from it. Could Ron Paul?

    Comment by Kurt — October 11, 2007 @ 9:47 am
  17. Doug,

    Am I wrong in assuming that your problem with videos like this is that they’ll be used to smear Ron Paul? My point is that I don’t see this happening, and have no reason to believe it will be a problem.

    Comment by Isaac — October 11, 2007 @ 9:50 am
  18. Stormfront is probably a federal agent. You know like the one that organized the white supremecist march in Orlando. The Orlando Sentinel did a piece on that a few months ago.

    Comment by PC — October 11, 2007 @ 9:50 am
  19. Wow, I guess Ron Paul should suggest that racist people should be put against the wall and shot so they can’t harm anyone’s run for presidency. Doug, Stormfront is a website, with a couple of hundred posters, it’s not an “organization”. The perils of free speech…how can a society exist with pesky people piping up on the internet.

    Doug, think about this. A Ron Paul presidency would not be particulary Israel-focused. Paul would not help AIPAC or other Zionist organizations thrive. Zion orgs (such as ADL) routinely set up false opposition fronts in order to control the message from both sides of opposing fronts. Now, think about the fact that “Stormfront Inc.” is registered and run out of a West Palm Beach suburban address – one of the most heavily Jewish populated locales in the country. Is the ADL not aware of this? If not, why not? Who also benefits by hurting Ron Paul’s presidential run?

    Comment by Gene — October 11, 2007 @ 9:57 am
  20. Check the date on the Video. Its funny how this comes up all of a sudden, after Paul starts getting media attention. besides, O.J. supports Hillary, So what.

    Comment by John Galt — October 11, 2007 @ 10:00 am
  21. People don’t listen to this propaganda crap for this is nothing more than a smear tactic and what is really funny IS THIS THE BEST YOU PEOPLE CAN DO? REALLY A YOUTUBE VIDEO CLAIMING TO BE SCUM OF THE EARTH SUPPORTING RON PAUL GIVE ME A BREAK.

    If this is the best you guys can do then your in bad shape.

    RONPAUL2008.COM

    Comment by Steve — October 11, 2007 @ 10:03 am
  22. Umm, every sensible person is ignoring. Why do you feel like you need to bring attention to it, cause a stir, and spread their videos?

    Comment by matt shiner — October 11, 2007 @ 10:10 am
  23. Doug,
    With all due respect, I disagree with your position. Ron Paul is an advocate of freedom, which like it or not means that even Stormfront or David Duke or anyone else for that matter has a right to freely express their views and opinions. As for labels like racist, supremacists, anti-semite are not they awarded by MSM to those who refuse to follow the “party line”? And did not MSM tried to play “racist/anti-semite” card with Ron Paul?I My question is how come we don’t trust MSM when they defame Ron Paul but go along when they defame alternative views? To the point: Stormfront and anybody else have the right to support candidate they like and Ron Paul don’t have to tell them “to go to hell”. In fact, I am sure you are not the fan of John Birch Society either, but when Dr. Paul was asked, in essence, if he should disassociate himself from their support, he answered that he don’t see anything in JBS position that disagrees with his stance. I am sure Dr. Paul disagrees with most of Stormfront ideology but he does not have to fall into name calling either as you did. This begs another question are you for Liberty for all or just selected groups that agree with your opinions? I lived for 30 years in a country where freedom of speech was guaranteed by the Constitution (Soviet Union), but you were only free to speak in accord with official propaganda. I hope that it will never happen here and that is why I support Ron Paul, even I disagree with him on some issues.
    Best regards!

    Comment by Sergei — October 11, 2007 @ 10:11 am
  24. Repudiating this fascists only gives them the recognition they crave. The only people who even pay any attention to these fascists are the fascists themselves…

    Comment by The Phalanx — October 11, 2007 @ 10:11 am
  25. people – Doug is not the enemy. He is just bringing up points to consider.

    What would Ron say at this point?

    “I no longer think that groups of people should be allowed to congregate anymore – we no longer need the first amendment’s right of association.”

    I’m not a Constitutionalist but unless we ban hate here in America I think they have a right to meetup.

    I don’t share their views but I also don’t share the views of the CFR.

    As long as Ron Paul doesnt endorse Stormfront and it doesn’t come out in the MSM (prolly will) then there is no need to acknowledge them – nor click on the video link above.

    Comment by a patriot — October 11, 2007 @ 10:18 am
  26. So should Rudy and Mitt present a press statement that they don’t want to assocaite themselves with sodomites or lesbians?

    Doug you really had to look for this one didn’t you?

    I’m sure i would not see an edorsement on Paul’s site of stormfront. By the say until you brought it up I had no idea what storm fron was…

    If it’s any breaking news to consider they are probly paid by Rudy, Mitt or even the party to say they support Paul…. We have seen this in the past…

    Don’t you realize if you offer attention then that is when it becomes a big deal. I don’t expect Paul to say anything unless the MSM makes an issue of it.

    Comment by Darel99 — October 11, 2007 @ 10:26 am
  27. My next door neighbor went to jail for child molesting. He supports Rudy Giuliani.

    Comment by Bill Moore — October 11, 2007 @ 10:33 am
  28. patriot,

    The problem here is that these kind of pieces give undue exposure to the very thing its supposed to be against.

    Allow me to illustrate my point with this.

    Now think, how many politics wonks and buffs do you think have Google Alerts set up for each of the candidates? Not all of them are necessarily Ron Paul supporters, and might be on the fence. I don’t think the damage/benefit ratio works out in Paul’s favor in this instance…

    Comment by Isaac — October 11, 2007 @ 10:36 am
  29. Anyone who takes pride in the color of their skin must have very little else to be proud of. This vid just seems to show the common ground in which extreme groups opposing each other can agree on. What are the fundamental ties that bind us together in the several states of America and are they stronger than the wedges that divide? Maybe RPs philosophy on individual liberty for all will rub off on racist people of ALL colors. Maybe the peaceful prosperity that RP could bring around will alleviate some of the stresses in life that cause people to seek out and succumb such narrow minded racist groups. There are other groups that pose a bigger threat to all of us than racist groups.

    Sincerely,
    Cali Cracker

    Comment by Jeff Roark — October 11, 2007 @ 10:38 am
  30. Or check this out.

    Notice the complete lack of anyone using this to smear him, the only place it shows up from is libertypapers.org.

    Comment by Isaac — October 11, 2007 @ 10:42 am
  31. Turns out this is coming out alot in the Blogosphere today. Given the date of the video, and the stupid nature of the guilt by association attack, I suspect it is a smear coming from the Bushies – Probably because of this

    Ron Paul: I would lose all credibility with an endorsement from President Bush

    http://dailypaul.com/node/3286

    Comment by John Galt — October 11, 2007 @ 10:47 am
  32. I can’t wait until Osama bin Laden’s video endorsing Hillary comes out.

    Comment by Tex MacRae — October 11, 2007 @ 10:50 am
  33. Doug,

    Sorry, but until this actually becomes a major issue, it’s a non-story. I agreed with your point about Alex Jones and “trutherism” because Paul had some direct involvement in that and it needed to be highlighted. This is just some fringe group spouting off an opinion that Paul’s got nothing to do with. And, as a couple of other posters noted, it would be hypocritical of Paul to attack their position anyway considering that he’s for free speech. Ignoring it’s the best move politically right now, and ethically for the long term. In this case, I think the “Paulestinians” are right…you’re just digging for flaws and highlighting unimportant issues. That’s your right as an individual, but if you’re interested in supporting the Paul campaign at all it’s completely counter-productive.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 11, 2007 @ 10:53 am
  34. I agree with that other poster that StormFront is most likely a federally controlled front group. Almost invariably, every one of these hate groups is ran and controlled by federal agents, used to create conditions to advance an agenda.

    In this case, there is an effort by StormFront (i.e., the feds, perhaps) to discredit Ron Paul by trying to amalagamate themselves with his name. I would expect to see more of these provocateurs as the Ron Paul campaign grows.

    Let’s remember here that Ron Paul has no control over what anybody else says. He is no more associated with them, than is any other candidate associated with every last one of their nut job supporters. If Ron Paul were to publicly “disassociate” himself with StormFront, that would imply that he had been associated with them to begin with, which is false. It would also give them and the issue more attention than either one deserves. The best policy here would be to completely ignore them.

    If you look at Dr. Ron Paul’s positions, there is nothing remotely similar to nazism or fascism, both of which rest upon statism and central planning. The idea that communism and fascism are polar opposites is a fiction. What is true is that the communists and the fascists might use different excuses for statism, but it is still statism.

    You notice the founding fathers never argued over labels such as communism or fascism, but they always focused on what the proper role – i.e., size – of government should be. They recognized that it is state power itself which is the danger, and it mattered not who was managing it. Today, we have this idea that the government can run everything, just so long as we get the “right” planners in there. There is nothing racist about freedom. The free market has never produced a concentration camp, as nobody would patronize such a thing.

    Comment by Mark Anderson — October 11, 2007 @ 11:00 am
  35. Isn’t Stormfront a front for an FBI agent provocateur group?

    Comment by Joseph Blau — October 11, 2007 @ 11:03 am
  36. Mark,

    You’re completely out to lunch with your Stormfront/FBI conspiracy allegations. Where’s your proof of a link? Just because it makes sense in your own mind and seems like a logical possibility does not make it so or qualify as proof. Physical evidence does.

    The reason these racist groups are tying themselves to Paul is because of his position on immigration. They agree with his basic policy of patrolling the borders, but while Paul is for it because he feels that open borders are incompatible with a welfare state, these groups are for closed borders because they want to keep “minorities” out. Normally these guys would be voting for Tancredo, who’s about as blatant a racist as you’re going to see in politics, but since he’s on the way out and Paul made a semi-positive reference to Tancredo in the Maryland debate that’s likely why they’re throwing their support over to Ron Paul…because they know Tancredo’s going to lose and they think Paul has a chance of winning and has common ground with them on one key issue. It’s their own way of voting for the least worst candidate.

    Your summary of how supremacists and Ron Paul are incompatible is accurate. Those guys don’t care, though, because they’re a bunch of fucking idiots. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be racists.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 11, 2007 @ 11:23 am
  37. Mark,

    You’re completely out to lunch with your Stormfront/FBI conspiracy allegations. Where’s your proof of a link? Just because it makes sense in your own mind and seems like a logical possibility does not make it so or qualify as proof. Physical evidence does.

    The reason these racist groups are tying themselves to Paul is because of his position on immigration. They agree with his basic policy of patrolling the borders, but while Paul is for it because he feels that open borders are incompatible with a welfare state, these groups are for closed borders because they want to keep “minorities” out. Normally these guys would be voting for Tancredo, who’s about as blatant a racist as you’re going to see in politics, but since he’s on the way out and Paul made a semi-positive reference to Tancredo in the Maryland debate that’s likely why they’re throwing their support over to Ron Paul…because they know Tancredo’s going to lose and they think Paul has a chance of winning and has common ground with them on one key issue. It’s their own way of voting for the least worst candidate.

    Your summary of how supremacists and Ron Paul are incompatible is accurate. Those guys don’t care, though, because Stormfront are a bunch of fucking idiots. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be racists.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 11, 2007 @ 11:23 am
  38. Will your next article be on the racist supporters of Obama? Look into the racist groups supporting him, or is the TRUTH too much for you to stomach?

    Comment by Erik Bowman — October 11, 2007 @ 11:37 am
  39. How can anybody be sure this is not a smear tactic from another campaign? Even if it is not, the fact is the message of FREEDOM will attract people of all stripes, and colors – and THAT is what makes our country great. I for one despise orgnaizations like Stormfront, but I respect their right to exist in this great country. When you trade security for freedom, you have neither. The same goes for free speach. This post by the author is nothing more than an ongoing hit piece by this blog that certainly does not appear to support the consitution or the rule of law.

    Comment by J.C. — October 11, 2007 @ 11:37 am
  40. This endorsement does raise some problems, but I think we can overreact if we’re not careful. If you listen to the endorsement, all the things the narrator is praising are things that we constitutionalists already advocate: lower taxes, noninterventionism, honest money and several other issues.

    Also toward the end of the clip, she mentions that Ron Paul stands for “much” of what her group does — implying that she is aware that he doesn’t stand for ALL of it.

    I think the wisest approach for Ron to take is a classic libertarian one: mention that he doesn’t agree with their basic beliefs, but that in a free society they certainly have the right to endorse whom they will and he’s glad to find more and more people agreeing with HIS message of freedom, peace and prosperity.

    By the way, I wonder how many Democratic candidates get endorsed by LEFT-WING extremists (communists, etc.) but aren’t called upon to repudiate those endorsements?

    Making a mountain out of this little mole hill would be a bad mistake. Ron needs to keep on message and quit worrying about things he really has no control over.

    Comment by John — October 11, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
  41. Ron’s message is going to whoever finds it appealing. If these knuckle-heads find him intriguing fine, but its such a small group it is not worth mentioning at all.

    I wonder if this is a mere smear against him AGAIN.

    Finally a man comes with integrity, honor, and a consistent record that other Candidates would kill to have, yet you find some group no one even knows about that endorses him and it should become a national story. Makes me sick, that this site of all site’s would make a story out of this!!!

    Ron Paul 2008, screw all these numerous smear tactics used to discredit Ron and the hard work he has done and will continue to do for US- The People, not war contractors looking for their next “no bid” contract.

    Comment by Gs — October 11, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
  42. All the more reason for Dr. Paul to select Walter Williams as his running mate. That would put this to bed immediately.

    Comment by Sam Marsh — October 11, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
  43. Heck, check out all the fringes that Obama and Hillary pander to, like LaRaza…. the left has far more fringe people supporting them….it’s everyone!

    Comment by NH — October 11, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
  44. OH yes the communist party endorses Hillary — why is that not news?

    Comment by NH — October 11, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
  45. FREEDOM doesn’t divide us.

    Im glad white supremesist support Ron Paul!
    Im glad satanist support Ron Paul!
    Im glad christians support Ron Paul!
    Im glad liberals support Ron Paul!
    Im glad muslums support Ron Paul!
    HELL im glad if Charles Manson supports Ron Paul!
    AND most of all….

    IM GLAD “YOU” SUPPORT RON PAUL!!!!!

    Ron Paul 2008

    Comment by Nick Avramov — October 11, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
  46. I just saw the video and I think there is nothing wrong with it. She points out that everyone can have their own national ‘pride’ and proclaim it proudly except for ONE group.

    The video is mostly promoting substantive information that has nothing to do with race. I can’t see how this is damaging. I excpected some sort of rant on minorities and there was none.

    It even says ‘work together’ to elect someone who agrees with all his positions.

    I wonder, do you object to the Latino Nationalists who are here illegally from south of the border and openly threaten to kill the rest of us while flying their flag over the American Flag? I suppose you are one of those open borders crazies?

    I think this video is ‘much ado about nothing’.
    Move on, nothing to see here!
    LOL

    Comment by NH — October 11, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
  47. I don’t think Dr. Paul should even dignify this with a response. If he repudiates them, it will only serve to call attention to them. Most voters won’t even find out about this because the MSM won’t give these jerks the time of day.

    Comment by Kevin Houston — October 11, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
  48. Sam, no, that’s called pandering. He should select Walter because we LIKE Walter, not to protect himself against accusations that some people might fling….

    Do you want him to pander like Hillary does? Get real.

    Comment by NH — October 11, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
  49. Kevin, you are assuming this video is somehow bad. I see nothing wrong with it. These people can support who they want. They laid out substantive ideas in the video, it was not a hateful video. It is not hateful to promote your race is it? If so, then all the other groups allowed to do it openly must be hateful.

    Did you object to ‘strippers’ and ‘hip-hoppers’ and ‘black power’ or ‘gays’ for Ron Paul?

    There is nothingn here to repudiate and I’m sure it will be ignored.

    Comment by NH — October 11, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
  50. To J.C. — you say you ‘despise’ people like this group.

    What would you say if someone told you they ‘despised’ the NAACP or LaRaza?

    Think about it!

    Do unto others, please.

    Comment by NH — October 11, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
  51. You say the campaign has to disassociate itself with such groups, but the campaign has never associated with them to begin with. What they choose to do, they can do. I personally think groups like that are disgusting and supporting Dr. Paul for their own selfish gains. However, as long as Dr. Paul doesn’t sway to their views on things and remains strong, I see no problem.

    Comment by Danny — October 11, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
  52. Hi, we are the Association of Brutal Dictators, Mass Murderers and Pedophiles for Hillary and Giulaini. Join us!

    -Adolph

    Comment by Adolph Hitler — October 11, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
  53. you know, I am not mad at you Doug for reporting on this.

    however, I think it would be a waste of time and energy for the campaign to even acknowledge the existence of this piece of shit group.

    Fred Thompson has had White Nationalist groups support him to (I can’t find it now, but I saw a video along these lines a month or so ago). Nobody would dare accuse him of being associated with them!

    Ron Paul has a support group in friggin’ Belgium. Does that mean that he’s Belgian and only cares about Belgian interests? Nonsense.

    Ron Paul’s campaign should not waste time denounce the Belgians or fucks like the above group.

    If someone dares accuse him of having ANY association, he can rake them through the coals just like he’s done anytime someone has asked him about truthers.

    All it does is discredit the pundit asking the question and give Ron Paul a chance to look more credible.

    I’m not worried about it in the slightest.

    -Chad

    Comment by Chad — October 11, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
  54. What does she say that is so horrible or wrong?

    Comment by ryan rabalais — October 11, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
  55. Doug,
    Why not just leave liberty papers and join Red State dot com. You seem much more suited to the neocon camp than the liberty camp. Why not just take your liberty hating, Ron Paul bashing rhetoric where it will be better received.

    The number one defender and upholder to our constitution in the current sitting government is Ron Paul.

    A branch of Move-On dot org just did a nice video of Ron Paul as well. I guess freedom is popular and everyone from progressive to neo-nazi wants to be free and they see Ron Paul as being the one best suited to defend their freedom to be who they are.

    I am not on either side of this issue but I defend their right as Americans to have their own opinion or a candidate and for Ron Paul to not be responsible for them, but to be responsible for himself, and in getting his message of freedom across to the voting public with his Presidential bid.

    It is called free speech Doug you know the First Amendment.

    Comment by libertyman — October 11, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
  56. I agree, the campaign should repudiate the Mataconis filth immediately or else they will lose all credibility. I mean if Mataconis writes a single article about your campaign it’s basically over. Also, anyone who posts on this blog, including me, needs to be repudiated immediately because we are ruining the RP campaign.

    Comment by brody — October 11, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
  57. My, oh my. I love how stormfront is getting all this attention. God forbid we just ignore them.

    Comment by somebody — October 11, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
  58. I really dont see the problem, Ron Paul has called racism itself a sin. If the Americans for eating congressmen (Mark Twain “Cannabalism in the cars” for those of you wondering about the choice of wording)decided to support Huckabee it doesnt mean that Huckabee supports eating congressmen (and women). Everyone has free speach in the US, you and I can support who we want for any reason. I personally support Ron Paul on his financial policies his being against the Iraq war, and his being anti abortion. Maybe the people making this video support him for the same reasons (I couldnt finish the video, Ill try again later). Its VERY obvious if your a racist of any type youll have a hard time finding a racist candidate. I guess if you had to pick the one closest to a racist platform it would probably be Tancredo(and hes not even racist hes closer to Al Sharpton).

    Well to wrap it up, I agree with Ron Paul, Racism is evil, looking at someone else like hes different then you is wrong under any circumstance. But I am the only person that I can enforce my beliefs on.

    Comment by MikeB — October 11, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
  59. You mean like us people who KNOW that 911 was an inside job, tell me oh great one, how did world trade center #7 fall…….please tell us oh great and powerful OZ?

    Fuck off!

    Comment by Crazy Supporter — October 11, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
  60. Crazy Supporter,

    If you’re looking for the real explanation for why WTC #7 fell it’s right here:

    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    Comment by UCrawford — October 11, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
  61. OK, so a bunch of moronic neo-nazi types endorsed Dr. Paul.

    So what? They can do that.

    That guilt-by-association trick won’t fly.

    Put it this way:

    “A group of Venutians landed on Ground Zero today and announced their endorsement of Hillary Clinton, claiming that she shared their views on Mars Colonization and global warming. The Venutians, no strangers to global warming, have been at war with Mars for centuries (although Earthlings never noticed) and encourage Earth to colonize Mars. Venus denies it, but Martian intelligence claims that Venus has Weapons of Mars Destruction and that Mars had no choice but to respond to the threat by producing their XP-38 Space Modulator, currently under construction on the Moon by a Martian named Marvin and his dog. Venus seeks American interventionism in the region to prevent a Venutian 9/11, probably led by noted quack Duck Dodgers.”

    “The Hillary campaign had no comment on the endorsement, but volunteers on the campaign called the whole thing simply ‘Looney Tunes.’

    “Hillary’s opponents were quick to call on Hillary to distance herself from the endorsement.”

    Comment by tannim — October 11, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
  62. Tannim,

    Heh, heh…well put.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 11, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
  63. Very well put….
    Finally finished it, anyone notice they used the music from the lord of the rings movies?

    So im guessing JRR Tolkien is a Nazi now since they like music from a movie about his books. Discounting the fact he was extremely anti Nazi.

    Comment by MikeB — October 11, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
  64. ron paul is a uniter and not a divider.

    Comment by danh — October 11, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
  65. Here’s how it works. Ron Paul endorses them, he has a problem.

    They endorse him, it’s called “Freedom of Speech”.

    It’s really not that difficult a concept.

    Condemning the endorsed person because random groups choose to endorse him is a guilt by association fallacy which only has any power when people fall for the fallacy.

    Will more people accept the fallacy if we suggest it’s actually legitimate and demand a denouncement, or if we give it all the attention it’s due: none?

    Comment by Akston — October 11, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
  66. Ditto Akston’s comment.
    Last time I checked, Ron Paul had support from various people in 22 different countries.
    It’s a strange world and there are likely even stranger people yet to be found.

    Comment by Seth — October 11, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
  67. BOY SOMEONE’S WORKING OVERTIME TO SCREW RON PAUL! GEE I who’s behind this hit?

    Comment by Joe — October 11, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
  68. Lone Star Times picked up on it after Doug Mataconis put his article out. LST is staunch, unrelenting anti-Paul:

    http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/11/friends-in-low-places/

    wtg Doug, you get the Dungheap Brownstar award.

    Comment by oilnwater — October 11, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
  69. UCrawford, you are completely out to lunch. You contorted what I said. You began by saying that my “StormFront/FBI” conspiracy theory is just silly, and then ask me where my “proof” is.

    The funny thing is, if you re-read my post, I didn’t even mention the FBI. You inserted the FBI into this, which tells me you must be very acquainted with the fact that the FBI has ran and co-opted hate groups.

    You also asked me for my “proof,” yet if you re-read my post, you will see that I never claimed to know with certainty or empirically that this was the case. It is a gut feeling, based upon knowledge I have garnered through careful study and research. In my post, I make it clear that I don’t know, but using the word “perhaps.”

    Comment by Mark Anderson — October 12, 2007 @ 12:14 am
  70. Every American has the right to speak as they will, to assemble as they will and to believe what they will.

    While I do not agree with their beliefs I can not begrudge them for making use of their rights no matter how they go about doing it, so long as they do no harm to others.

    Comment by Jamse B Schlessinger Jr — October 12, 2007 @ 1:06 am
  71. You’re right…you didn’t specifically mention the FBI, so my fault for making that specific argument when you did not. What you specifically stated was:

    “I agree with that other poster that StormFront is most likely a federally controlled front group.”

    Also a completely unsubstantiated position (which you admit you have no proof for beyond your “gut feeling”) so I rightly pointed that out to you as a position unworthy of mention. The only reason I went after your post and not the others’ (who were explicitly making the Stormfront/FBI links) is because I thought you were right on your point about white supremacy being incompatible with Paul’s doctrine, which I found insightful and thought merited discussion in the hopes that you’re not simply one of those “the government is secretly controlling everything” morons.

    The point of my response was that there was a very simple, rational, and substantiated explanation for why Stormfront endorsed Ron Paul (despite his real incompatibility with their ideology) without resorting to ridiculous conspiracy theories about the government somehow being responsible. If you want to have a discussion on that, I’d be interested in doing so. If you want to have a discussion based on the premise that Stormfront is a government-run front, then I don’t care because it’s speculative conspiracy bullshit and, frankly, a waste of time.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 11:07 am
  72. Last comment addressed to Mark Anderson.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 11:10 am
  73. It’s funny to see Doug being a troll on his own site.

    This place should be called “Liberty Troll”

    Comment by Samj — October 12, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
  74. Stormfront Isn’t White supremacist. That is even more evident given the fact Stormfronts members have given their support to a libertarian style candidate. Our views are the same as the founders of America. That’s why we support someone who will be a modern day washington,jefferson. It’s pretty simple. We are seperatists. We explain this many times, though the liberal media and schools haven’t spent 40 years Indoctrinating people into hating “seperatists” so for now again we are mislabeled as Supremacists, it serves a purpose of envoking emotion. Good luck with that, White pride forever.

    Comment by Average White taxpayer — October 12, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
  75. White pride forever.

    Dude, that simple phrase demonstrates just what kind of organization Stormfront really is.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 13, 2007 @ 6:43 am
  76. “Dude, that simple phrase demonstrates just what kind of organization Stormfront really is.”

    You’re right it does. So to the liberals watching, if having pride in your Race&culture is Racist then Non-whites are more guilty of Racism than Whites. . .

    Comment by Average White taxpayer — October 13, 2007 @ 7:23 am
  77. “Dude, that simple phrase demonstrates just what kind of organization Stormfront really is.”

    You’re right it does. So to the liberals watching, if having pride in your Race&culture is Racist then Non-whites are more guilty of Racism than Whites. . .

    Hate to say it, but he’s got a point. In my life I’ve heard the phrase “Black Power” chanted far more often than “White Power” and nobody ever accused the blacks of being racist. Why is he not allowed to have pride when the other groups are?

    Comment by SonataNo8 — October 13, 2007 @ 8:05 am
  78. He can say whatever he wants, he just can’t deny what it means.

    If you’re stomach can handle it, take a look at Stormfront’s website (I will not link to it), and you’ll see what I mean.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 13, 2007 @ 8:23 am
  79. “He can say whatever he wants, he just can’t deny what it means.”

    You’re mixing style with substance. In true egalitarianism one would treat such sights in the sense of all things being equal, but they don’t they look at White words with more scrutiny then they do the words from other races. These Racial double standards exist and are inherently Racist.

    Comment by Average White taxpayer — October 13, 2007 @ 8:50 am
  80. Average White Taxpayer,

    As a non-supremacist/separatist myself, and someone who tries to view the world in terms of individuals and not collective groups, I don’t particularly care whether the words are coming out of the mouth of a black person or a white person. If you want to argue that the stupid things that some white people say are somehow justified or given more credibility by the stupid things that some black people say, you’re not really making an argument for your position as much as you’re subscribing to a logical fallacy (tu quoque, specifically).

    If you don’t like black people, or Asian people, or Jewish people, or whoever else, that’s your own business and you’re free to associate (or not associate) with whomever you choose. But that doesn’t make the position of segregating yourself from others on the basis of superficialities (increasingly inaccurate superficialities at that) any less stupid of an idea.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 10:34 am
  81. Again this is taken out of terms. The point that i was making before was that White “racists” are treated with more disdain than other races when the message is the same or even worse. Not to give credit or justification but as a comparison. Whether or not I like Jews or who ever is not relevant and for that to be even brought into this is somewhat of an ad-hominem.

    I do want to separate, if you judge that as stupid then so be it. Israel has some of the most restrictive Immigration laws around, so at least I’m glad you think that is also stupid. Stormfront is mealy a forum with a banner that says “White Pride” its members control what its material is and its only a select few that are your hard-core types. The majority being concerned White citizens and using the same logic applied by anti-racists and the government and liberal media when it comes to Black criminals, just because some are bad doesn’t mean they all are right?.

    Comment by Average White taxpayer — October 13, 2007 @ 10:52 am
  82. AVT,

    Actually I was just citing examples, that wasn’t meant as an accusation as to your personal tastes because I really don’t know who you like or dislike, or even really care. I just named three random groups, the statement is just as applicable to groups who don’t like white people either.

    If you want to be separate, that’s your right to free association. I do think it’s stupid, but then again I believe that individual freedom also includes the right to be stupid and irrational so we’ll just agree to disagree. Where I draw the line is where separatists start trying to apply segregation outside the realm of their own property lines. Believe and associate with who you want in your own home or business…but leave that crap out of how government does business in the public domain.

    As for Stormfront, I agree on the smaller point that racism is prevalent today and that often the press does have a double standard when it comes to who is portrayed as the victim. But I’m not deluding myself into believing that a site proclaiming “White Power” on its front page is pushing for equality for individuals…they’re pushing for their own version of special perks for their select group. It’s wrong when black people do it and it’s equally as wrong when white people do it.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
  83. ‘latched onto the Paul candidacy for it’s own purposes.’
    Sorry to break it to you but everyone latches on to candidates for their own purposes. To further their beliefs. Do you really need to be told that not all white nationalists support Ron Paul? Everyone has a mind of their own. Even those who are in favour of separatism.

    Comment by Jade — October 14, 2007 @ 2:13 am
  84. White Power? It Doesn’t say that at all on its Main page, the message is White Pride. Two totally different words, and concepts. I didn’t feel to powerful when i had my but kicked over 100 metre dash back at School by a Black guy. Though we do on Stormfront acknowledge the great achievements members of our distinct Race have accomplished over the aeons. I understand you were making a point with the Jewish statement etc I guess I just get sick of that particular side of things always brought into other topics. It is like it’s a way to instantly discredit us. When the people who spout Equality truly treat each race and the Negative and positive things they do with Equal treatment I’ll start paying more attention. I just struggle to accept their everybodys “equal” rhetoric when their blatant hypocrisy is so prevalent. The double standards must be conflicting.

    Comment by Average White taxpayer — October 16, 2007 @ 12:29 am
  85. AWT,

    “White Pride” means the same thing to me as “White Power”…it’s a pointless celebration based on the idea that all white people share a common heritage, which we don’t, and that some kind of racial ideal exists, which it doesn’t (and the same is true of every other ethnic group in the world). The color of somebody’s skin or their ethnic background is the most useless characteristic to judge them by as far as I’m concerned. Who they are as an individual and how they act towards me is what’s important. I’ve got friends who are black who I’d trust with my life without a second’s hesitation and I’ve known white people I wouldn’t walk across the street to piss on if they were on fire. The characteristics that formed my opinion of them had nothing to do with their racial background but in who they were as people and frankly I don’t see the color of somebody’s skin as a reason to be either proud or ashamed. It’s just a superficial characteristic, and it becomes more and more meaningless as the world becomes more interconnected and humans societies further intermingle.

    Like I said, if you want to separate yourself from people who don’t look like you, as far as I’m concerned that’s your individual right to free association. And as long as you’re not trying to impose segregation on others in the public domain by force of law, you’ll have no arguments with me.

    But I do agree with you about the hypocrisy of groups who claim to want equality but are really looking for special privileges or to force their preferences on other people. If it makes you feel any better, I react just as harshly towards them as I do towards white separatists/supremacists/etc.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 16, 2007 @ 2:36 am
  86. UCrawford –

    You make it seem as if one can separate in our Multiracial, Multicultural Nations. I believe rather that It’s near impossible for the Racial and cultural integrity of a people to maintain in such conditions. A people without a Homogenous homeland will never survive past a few centuries. I truly believe races of Humans do exist, we have evolved Sub-species, I can’t believe anyone would believe otherwise. To say we don’t have Physical and mental characteristics not shared with other groups is somewhat baffling. We all agree skin is different, though Skin is just an organ, why would that be privy to change but not other organs?. people under estimate Evolution. We change when we lye in the sun to get a tan. That’s our body adapting to it’s sorroundings, the same with Body building, your muscles adapt to the stresses and conditions you put them through and 100+ thousand years of separation has changed Humans social mental and physical behavior.

    But that is the core of Anti-racism these days, to force a social experiment onto the people you need to subvert them into thinking unrationally. When you look at things more objectively rather than subjectively it’s out of the range of possibility that all races are equal but one of those is responsible to close to 90% of all the great inventions and discoveries of the world. I just don’t buy it.

    White pride to you may be interpreted as White power if you like, but that doesn’t change its meaning. Again the double standards of Whites being the only race that can’t be proud of its heritage is disturbing to me. To which I take the philosophic approach of asking not why it is but how it has came to be. I belong to a group who are being systematically breeded out of existence in the name of “Tolerance”, any demographic I’ve seen shows Whites will be long gone before most other Races.

    Unfortunately the “It’s just a skin color” gets played over again, but that is one small attribute of races, purely because of climate. It’s just a color to me, Race is a lot deeper. It’s only “useless” to Egalitarians and cultural Marxists, and we don’t share that view. It might be low down on your scale but not of ours. My best mate is Aboriginal, He’s is one of the nicest Blokes you’re ever likely to meet, but that doesn’t change that there are difference between us that are Biological. Australian Aboriginals can’t drink alcohol like White Europeans can because they lack the enzymes in their blood to break it down as efficiently. If Race didn’t exist neither would that. Organ rejection rates go up when the donor and receiver are of a different race and so on.

    I respect your opinion, My mind is always open to what Science can provide us. Each Race has their own Inherent biological traits that evolved from their culture and sorroundings which they can use to their advantage in different fields, sport,education etc.

    You may claim I’m trying to “force segregation” on others, but Segregation was natural, it was those who forced integration that decided to change things. A lot of that blame falls back onto Europeans, and being the believer in survival of the fittest, if we don’t resist current trends then we have only ourselves to blame.

    Comment by Average White taxpayer — October 16, 2007 @ 4:26 am
  87. AWT,

    “Systematically breeded out of existence” implies a program that determines my mate for me and forces reproduction without my consent. No such choice is made for me and I have a wealth of options to choose from as, I assume, do you. When humans reproduce, some traits are passed on to the offspring, some are not but both parents contribute. One ethnic group does not have a monopoly on dominant genetic traits. Now if you’re interested in only being with people who are from a similar background to your own, that’s again your right of free association and your own form of natural selection. For myself, I’ll just choose someone I happen to like as a person and feel attracted to, which hasn’t been exclusive to any ethnic group or excluded any ethnic group as far as I’ve seen. Everyone’s got something positive about them. Natural segregation I can live with, as long as you’re not proposing to limit my options by creating segregation through the rule of man’s law, you and I aren’t in conflict.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 16, 2007 @ 8:26 am
  88. A wealth of options? Not if you’re an over taxed Middle class White person with no special Medical benefits, educational free rides for your dependents. Where Modern radical Feminism convinces Women, mostly White women giving up a life of Motherhood for a nine hour day desk job is an accomplishment, the system in place has certain ramifications which need not be written. And all the while giving Non-White special interest funding to improve their needs along with legal and illegal Immigration. The leading cause of White death is infanticide, another gift from those “choice loving” feminists. The current system is a manifestation of the socialist Neo-Marxist doctrines that are designed to encourage the underclass to breed through welfare incentives of cash, free-care, free-education which the Government prints the Money for, which in return devalues the price of the dollar eventually destroying the middle class. All simple reformist steps with the eventual aim of creating the “utopia” of the one world government globalized people of the NWO. The earth is already Multicultural, why breed them all together and ruin it unless you had an agenda.

    If as you mentioned before you treat things as Equal then I guess you will be just as critical about Obama’s connections to a Black Supremacist church and his mainly racialist loyal supporters.

    Comment by Average White taxpayer — October 16, 2007 @ 10:43 am
  89. 1) The government isn’t strapping white women to tables and forcing them to have abortions last time I checked…they were opting to have them on their own, 2) I oppose all government welfare programs, 3) I’ve known several Obama supporters none of whom are racist (merely uninformed), and 4) I don’t care about Obama’s ties because I’m not voting for the guy (because he supports socialized medicine). As for his alleged connections to a black supremacist group, if it’s true then it just validates my already low opinion of him, but in any case he’s still got the same right to free association that you do.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 16, 2007 @ 10:58 am
  90. Average White Taxpayer, you have been misinformed on genetic differences among races. The most salient observation here is that the genetic differences between individuals of the same race greatly exceeds the differences among races. In other words, if you’re sitting at a bar with another white and a black, the odds are just shy of 50% that you’ll be genetically closer to the black than to the white. Not exactly 50%, mind you — the obvious difference in skin color is worth a tiny fraction of a percent. But the differences you pay so much attention to are microscopic by any standard of genetic distance.

    Let me give you an analogy. There are many different versions of the Bible out there. What you’re doing is comparing three Bibles. Two have red covers and one has a black cover. You’re declaring — based solely on the color of the cover — that the two red Bibles are obviously different from the black Bible. You haven’t looked inside the Bibles and read any of their contents. For all you know, one of the red Bibles is written in Portuguese and the other red Bible is written in Dutch, while the black Bible is written in Dutch. You’re looking only skin deep.

    You write “My mind is always open to what Science can provide us.” Well, the science of human genetics has established a great deal (and there are lots of interesting genetic differences), but it has pretty well demolished the very concept of race. If I showed you a hundred different genetic breakdowns of a hundred different humans, and asked you to break them down into races based on genetic similarity, you would end up mixing up all the people that you think are separate races, and coming up with completely different groupings.

    Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 16, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
  91. I’d next like to respond to this claim:

    You may claim I’m trying to “force segregation” on others, but Segregation was natural, it was those who forced integration that decided to change things.

    No, there’s nothing innate about segregation. It is true that for much of history, cultural groups have excluded or discriminated against other cultural groups. But this segregation was cultural in motivation, not racial. There are lots of examples of societies in which racial differences were subsumed to cultural differences. The best example of this is Islam, in which racial differences were completely subsumed to religious factors. If you were Islamic, your skin color didn’t matter. If you were an infidel, your skin color wouldn’t save you.

    Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 16, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
  92. Ok, I’m clearly outnumbered here, Initially I wanted to leave my comment not get drawn into another debate. Those of you here that are White, I hope you remember that there’s “no such thing as Race” when you choose your Wife,husband,partner or when you choose which suburb to live in, or what school to send your children. I was, just last week looking at a picture from Africa of the pygmy tribes, around 4 and half feet tall, seems more than skin color to me, and also looking at the DNA evidence from skeletal discoveries of the “Mungo man”, more evidence some would like to ignore. Reading through your comments a reoccurring theme separates us, we all understand the differences, what motivates our opinions is how much we pay attention to them, and how much of a role they play.

    Comment by Average White taxpayer — October 18, 2007 @ 1:23 am
  93. AWT,

    As I said before, I respect your right to free association and if you want to stay racially separate that’s entirely up to you and I won’t try to convince you otherwise. As for your opinions on race, you’re entitled to them, but I don’t buy into them and as long as you’re not trying to force them on me or anyone else then we’ve got no conflict, merely a disagreement that there’s no need to really get into because we’re likely not going to come to a consensus.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 18, 2007 @ 9:51 am
  94. To be brutally honest for now, I’ve heard that line many times about me having my beliefs ‘as long as I don’t push them onto anyone else’. Now let’s imagine I was a communist for the moment, how easy would it be for me to be living in the height of that regime to able to tell others that they may have their beliefs in ‘democracy’ ‘national socialism’ etc as long as it didn’t interfere with my life and beliefs, More or less saying you can have your views as long as they don’t come to fruition.

    Point being; The problem I have is exactly what you didn’t want to happen to yourself. Your type of beliefs have interfered with my life, nation, race and culture. Naturally I’m resisting.

    Comment by Average White taxpayer — October 18, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
  95. Your type of beliefs have interfered with my life, nation, race and culture. Naturally I’m resisting.

    Of course. Fight the fights you believe in. Just respect my rights in the process.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 18, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
  96. AWT,

    The difference between fighting for your rights and infringing on mine comes at the point where you get government involved to deal with the situation.

    If, hypothetically, you and some friends don’t want to live around black people that’s your right to believe what you want. If you purchase several homes in the same neighborhood, maybe the neighboring homes as well, at that point you have the right to sell or not sell your property to whomever you choose. You have the right to allow or not allow whoever you want onto your property. Those are your rights of free association and property ownership.

    Where it becomes a matter of force is where you ask the government to step in and dictate who may or may not purchase those homes. Once you ask that the government step in and write a law to dictate that someone not be able to purchase a home in your area based on their ethnicity or skin color or whatever criteria you’ve gone from being someone defending their rights to being someone attempting to force their beliefs on others (since law is by its nature coercive and backed by violence). Basically, your rights to impose segregation stop at your property line and however you choose to act within that framework is your own business. Once you go outside of your property line imposing segregation is no longer your prerogative. Understand what I’m getting at?

    Comment by UCrawford — October 18, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML