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

“It is well, I die hard, but I am not afraid to go.”     George Washington,    His Final Words

October 26, 2007

More On Stormfront And The Ron Paul Campaign

by Doug Mataconis

Two weeks ago I wrote about the endorsement that Ron Paul’s campaign had received from the neo-nazi’s over at Stormfront.

Now,  its seems that the founder of the site has donated money to the campaign:

A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of Stormfront, a “white power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.

The amount in question — $ 500 — is small, but that doesn’t mean the campaign shouldn’t address it. This is, quite honestly, an issue that almost every politician faces at some point — you get a contribution from an unsavory character, or even one that is technically illegal under Federal Election Law. Even if it’s not illegal, there really is only one good PR move in a situation like this, you return the money and ask the person(s) in question not to send anymore.

You don’t building a winning coalition by letting the hatemongers in.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/26/more-on-stormfront-and-the-ron-paul-campaign/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

59 Comments

  1. I agree. Paul should give back the money put up by any leader of a racist group.

    However, Lone Star Times is pretty much out for Paul’s blood and are digging any hit piece they can find on him out of whatever obscure corner there is. Given there readership (not a whole hell of a lot), Paul might be best suited to give the money back quietly and not say anything, to prevent “controversy” from being manufactured.

    Comment by Greg — October 26, 2007 @ 7:29 am
  2. Why should Ron Paul give back the money?

    Does anyone think that $500.00 is going to influence Dr. Paul in some untoward way?

    And if he did give it back, what’s next? Will Doug complain next that members of the John Birch society are contributors? Students for 9/11 truth? We the People Foundation?

    And who knows what dark purpose the money may be put to if it goes back. Perhaps Don Black will donate it instead to John “Toilet” Bowles, who is running for president of the Nazi party.

    To paraphrase Jesus: “It is not what goes into a political campaign that is important, it is what comes out of it.”

    The views of the supporters is totally irrelevant, the views of Ron Paul are paramount.

    Comment by Kevin Houston — October 26, 2007 @ 7:54 am
  3. Kevin,

    It’s not a matter of influence, its a matter of not accepting money from a hatemonger and a racist.

    In the end, $ 500 isn’t going to make or break the campaign but the symbolism of something like this is exactly the kind of thing that a rival candidate will make use of in an election.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 26, 2007 @ 8:03 am
  4. Doug -

    If the hatemonger is an American citizen, you are saying his money is less useful? (I know you think it’s tainted).
    I oppose racism and hate-crimes/speech, but I won’t stop supporting Ron Paul simply because some American citizens donate money to him. It’s their right to do so.
    I’m sure I could find plenty of examples of “unsavory” donations to various other candidates.
    Just so you know, I am all in favor of “full disclosure with no restrictions on amount sent by an individual” campaign financing.

    Comment by Tom G — October 26, 2007 @ 8:20 am
  5. Yes, I know you could find unsavory donations to other campaigns and when they’re pointed out other campaigns give back the money. Paul will get more than $500 worth of negative press if he doesn’t give back the money. He’ll also get more than $500 worth of good press if he does give the money back. Paul should also issue a statement saying that racists and hate mongers need to look in the sewer for a candidate because he doesn’t want their money or their vote.

    Comment by Bob — October 26, 2007 @ 8:34 am
  6. Paul will get more than $500 worth of negative press if he doesn’t give back the money. He’ll also get more than $500 worth of good press if he does give the money back. Paul should also issue a statement saying that racists and hate mongers need to look in the sewer for a candidate because he doesn’t want their money or their vote.

    Well put Bob

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 26, 2007 @ 8:35 am
  7. Doug–Ron Paul can give that money back when Rudy, Romney, Hillary and all the rest give back all the money that special interests have contributed to their campaigns. I fail to see why this is any worse than the other candidates literally being bought by special interest groups who they will immediately repay once they are in power.

    Comment by Ben — October 26, 2007 @ 9:00 am
  8. Ben, I agree, they should really expose all the candidates and their contributors.

    Comment by Freedom Junkie — October 26, 2007 @ 9:08 am
  9. What do you think of “The Homegrown Terrorism Act”?

    http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50696

    Comment by James Bowery — October 26, 2007 @ 9:49 am
  10. Racists advocating not killing brown people or sending American troops (a large percentage black and brown) to die overseas. Why should this be discouraged?

    Comment by Chris — October 26, 2007 @ 9:49 am
  11. Last time I checked groups like this were protected under the Constitution.
    When they march or rally they get freedom of speech protection. They get police protection and as long as they do not break the law, they are not prohibited from donating.
    Telling the American people you sent back money because of speech association is telling the American people you only protect freedom of speech when it agrees with your own.
    This my fellow Americans is Tyranny.

    Comment by Robert Werden — October 26, 2007 @ 9:55 am
  12. So this is what we have to do? We have to look for obscure websites and find out who their administrators are and pretend like there is some connection between them and the campaign? Check, there are plenty of Paul supporters who will research, if they want to play dirty for dirty that is fine with me. This site is a joke. Also the straw you guys are grasping at are hilarious, there must really be concern.

    Comment by PC — October 26, 2007 @ 9:59 am
  13. Any Republican who accepted a check from someone who wants to nuke Iran should give the money back first.

    Where is Doug’s column on that subject?

    Comment by C Bowen — October 26, 2007 @ 10:07 am
  14. There has to be plenty of rapture people, people explicitly calling for the massacre of all muslim people, those who want to establish a theocracy, etc. Just pick a topic look for web sites and if they want to start a war over a non issue, let’s go.

    Comment by PC — October 26, 2007 @ 10:14 am
  15. PC

    Some actually write for this site (they use Stalinist phrases like Islamo-facism) and I tend to agree, we don’t want those hate-mongers as part of the Ron Paul coalition.

    Comment by C Bowen — October 26, 2007 @ 10:30 am
  16. My question is how can a site that apparently supports “The Homegrown Terrorism” bill be chosen by Google News as representative of “Liberty”?

    I mean, I posted a question about “The Homegrown Terrorism” bill above and they haven’t repudiated it have they?????

    Comment by James Bowery — October 26, 2007 @ 10:40 am
  17. Some actually write for this site (they use Stalinist phrases like Islamo-facism) and I tend to agree, we don’t want those hate-mongers as part of the Ron Paul coalition.

    Chuck, that is just a bald-faced lie. Name one contributor to this site who has supported nuking Iran.

    It ain’t me.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 26, 2007 @ 10:45 am
  18. James,

    I don’t understand why you think that someone’s failure to respond to a comment you wrote only two hours ago constitutes support for any piece of legislation.

    Quite frankly, I hadn’t heard anything about this bill until you mentioned it. It appears to me that all the bill does is establish a commission to study “homegrown terrorism” —- which doesn’t strike me as something that falls within Congressional duties to begin with.

    In any case, the bill doesn’t actually authorize any $ for the commission, but this seems to be something worth keeping an eye on.

    http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002610404.html

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 26, 2007 @ 10:48 am
  19. I agree with the others…I haven’t seen much (or anything, actually) about this in the mainstream press. As much as I disagree with their ideologies, they have the right to believe what they want and donate money to the campaigns they want. Campaign contributions are a form of political speech, once you start demanding that politicians deny people outlets with which to express their beliefs you’ve started down the road to statism and tyranny. Plus, as Kevin said, the views of Ron Paul are the only thing relevant here, not the campaign contributors.

    And it’s only because of anti-free speech laws (campaign finance “reform”) that these groups’ donations are an issue. Thanks to limits on what individuals can contribute the political funding system is about collective groups and not individuals. If the labor unions want to donate $40 million dollars in funding to Hillary Clinton, they can do it because they can spread the maximum donations among their groups’ individuals. If Charles Koch ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch ) wants to donate $40 million, though, that’s all wrong because (according to the standard political line these days) “obviously” collective groups aren’t as anti-freedom as individuals.

    Let Paul accept money from whomever he wants, Doug…as long as he’s not going to become a Nazi himself or vote a racist agenda, nobody should care where the money came from to get him there. He’s a politician, not Jesus. The only thing that’s important about him is how he votes.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 26, 2007 @ 10:54 am
  20. Doug,

    Using the term Islamo-facism, spreading anti-Iranian propaganda as you do, makes one a willing executioner to the possibility of war with Iran. Do you come out and say “nuke Iran”, no, you are more clever than that, playing the “libertarian moderate;” Screwtape taught you well.

    Hey, it’s not like Paul has to return a contribution from you– you didn’t give one.

    Comment by C Bowen — October 26, 2007 @ 11:06 am
  21. Would you give back the money if the mainstream press picked up the story? 1 of my worries is that they’ll cover the story about 1 week before the NH primary. The campaign will have to deal with it at a time when they can’t afford the bad press.
    Romney, Rudy et all will keep quiet on this until they need it. Instead of waiting and dealing with it on their terms the campaign should deal with it now.

    Comment by Bob — October 26, 2007 @ 11:14 am
  22. UCrawford,

    Its not really about rights, its about appearances and if Paul wants to show the right appearance, then giving the money back is probably the better PR move.

    Comment by Greg — October 26, 2007 @ 11:19 am
  23. Doug, some “Liberty Papers” you push. A citizen with a minority view shouldn’t be allow to donate to a candidate. What’s next? He shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Own a firearm? Gitmo-ed as a “non-combatant”? Pathetic.

    Give the money back? Ron Paul should issue a statement – “Freedom of unpopular speech should be abolished.”? Pathetic.

    That’ll do wonders for a campaign run on the Constitution. Your man Fred would get a real push in the polls then – but you already knew that.

    Comment by GeneG — October 26, 2007 @ 11:21 am
  24. Greg,

    If anyone but a few bloggers were making this an issue, I might agree. But this isn’t a story anywhere except the Internet, the mainstream press isn’t running with it at all so nobody except a few bloggers cares. The LoneStar Times (Doug’s citation) is hardly a widely-read publication. If the donation isn’t going to change the candidate’s platform and the story isn’t widespread enough to bring the campaign down, the candidate should simply take the donation and continue on his way because giving the money back isn’t going to give Paul any kind of significant publicity or image boost (except in the minds of people prone to nitpicking, like Doug, who are likely still going to vote for Paul even if he doesn’t give the money back).

    Also, racists/anti-Semites/separatists/”whoever we don’t like” all have their right to an opinion, same as the rest of us, and the right to express their opinion (through speech or campaign contribution) same as the rest of us. It would actually make Paul a hypocrite (and a foolish one at that) if he turned this into a bigger issue than it is and started rejecting donations simply to demonize a group of people he’s pretty conclusively noted he has nothing in common with…and frankly, there are far worse ways for these groups to be spending their money than on a candidate who supports individuals’ rights. I’d rather see them give the money to Paul than to anyone else. This is a non-story and a non-issue.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 26, 2007 @ 11:31 am
  25. GeneG,
    Its the Republican convention and the nomination is still in doubt. Ron Paul’s name is put before the convention and his supporters go wild! They start marching around the convention hall waving signs and chanting “Ron Paul”! At the back of the parade there are 6 guys in storm trooper uniforms they’re chanting “Ron Paul” and waving signs too. Their signs have a picture of Ron Paul on the left and a picture of Adolph Hitler on the right, the caption reads “OUR LEADER”. For the good of the our cause I want their freedom of speech limited. Start now, give back the money.
    Yes, they can give to any campaign they want. But the campaign should also have the freedom of speech to refuse the contribution.

    Comment by Bob — October 26, 2007 @ 11:35 am
  26. Maybe you could write an article that asks why Hillary is the leading candidate for donors from military contractors, a group whose donations are numbered in millions, by the way?

    Maybe an article on why Giuliani is one of the leading candidates in donations from law firms?

    No, instead we have here an article where a few ass-hole white supremacist scumbags are linked to Paul. This is just one of many attempts to discredit Paul. You should be ashamed.

    If you want to see some real scandal, look up “Peter Paul Hillary” in google. We’re talking about millions here folks, not a couple thousand, and Hillary is very much aware of it, whereas I doubt Paul even knows about these two contributions. He’s a little more busy these days talking about stuff that truly matters.

    -Christopher Burch

    Comment by Christopher — October 26, 2007 @ 11:47 am
  27. [Quote]Their signs have a picture of Ron Paul on the left and a picture of Adolph Hitler on the right, the caption reads “OUR LEADER”.

    Produce the photos and cut the dramatics. Amazing none of the ‘Kill the RP campaign before it grows’ opponents have siezed upon them.

    First, truly investigate who Don Black really is and ask yourself why is a white supremaist living in the largest Jewish suburb of Florida. Next, open up the ADL files on false front operations and how they are used to solidify the base.

    This is to Doug also…

    Comment by GeneG — October 26, 2007 @ 11:47 am
  28. Neo-Nazi’s are a tiny fragment of the political electorate, thank God. giving them their money back will do more good than potential harm in my opinion. I am sure it will in fact trigger more contributions than it will lose. In then end it is up to the Ron Paul campaign but I would not knowing take the money of hate mongers and racial bigots. Thats just me though. Ron has to make up his own mind.

    Comment by libertyman — October 26, 2007 @ 11:55 am
  29. The general voting public isn’t going to care if this guy is legit or not. All they’re going to know is that he’s a racist and that he supports Ron Paul. Why is it so important that the campaign accept neo nazi money? Why take the chance at the bad press? Give back the money now and there won’t be a headache later.
    If you’re right and he is on the government’s payroll why do you think he made the contribution? Maybe, its part of a plot to hurt the campaign at a key time. Short circuit their plan and give back the money now.

    Comment by Bob — October 26, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
  30. ‘Why take the chance at the bad press?’

    Okay Bob, tell me again, what “bad press”? All’s we see are a few internet blogs that are pro-Zionist and know Ron Paul will kill the US taxpayer cash cow to Israel along with every other nation we’ll pissed it all away on. The only “bad press” would be Ron Paul issuing some press release and a lot of supporters wondering if he’s really for free speech afterall. Stop being a tool and open up your eyes.

    Comment by GeneG — October 26, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
  31. In a political campaign its generally a good idea to head off potential problems before they turn into real problems. Giving back the money now will stop it from coming up later. I’m not worried about how his current supporters are going to look at this (there aren’t enough of them to elect him) I’m worried about how the rest of the voters will see this. My eyes are open, too bad about yours.

    Comment by Bob — October 26, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
  32. Bob,

    What press? I read the news a lot and the only place I see this stuff published is here and on a couple of other blogs. Honestly, nobody with any significant exposure cares where Ron Paul is getting his money. Nobody really cares that much where Hillary is getting her money or Guiliani is getting his money. “Unsavory campaign donors” is a story the press usually submits on a slow news day and then only about the front-runners…mainly because the readers/viewers change the channel or quit reading once you start talking about campaign financing because it’s a boring topic and Paul’s not high enough up in the polls for it to matter. The bad press potential here is very, very small and of negligible consequence and the Paul campaign can pretty easily address it if it ever becomes an issue (which I doubt it will) by simply pointing to his voting record.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 26, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
  33. Frankly, I’d worry more about the “truthers” than the Nazis…they’re far more closely tied to Paul’s campaign. Of course, I also don’t think Paul should give their money back either…particularly since most of them were only going to piss it away on tin-foil hats or books about how the moon landings were fake. Paul’s not a “truther” and if he gets elected he’s not going to advance their stupid agenda, so he might as well put the money to a constructive purpose.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 26, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
  34. Right now there is no press about this (I think I saw it in an European paper), but down the road it might come up. Why take the risk? Why what until he does become a front runner just to have this come up at the wrong time? What’s the down side to giving back neo-nazi money? The Paul campaign takes in $500 in less than 15 minutes so why don’t put any/all rumors about racist connections to bed by returning the money and issuing a statement denouncing racism. I don’t see the downside to what I’m advocating.

    Comment by Bob — October 26, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
  35. Doug Mataconis writes I don’t understand why you think that someone’s failure to respond to a comment you wrote only two hours ago constitutes support for any piece of legislation.

    My point was rhetorical: Just as it is nonsense for me to draw such conclusions it is nonsense to conclude that the Ron Paul campaign supports neo-Nazis based on his failure denounce neo-Nazi donors.

    Comment by James Bowery — October 26, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
  36. I believe that Dr. Paul would be going against his very position of personal freedom if he were to give the money back. Our very freedom guarantees this Black character the right to believe how he sees fit and to speak what he likes.

    What kind of message would Dr. Paul send if he said “I don’t agree with your message, so take your money back, as I will not defend your right to voice your opinion”.

    Comment by Davis — October 26, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
  37. The fact is this is just speculation and there has been no concrete proof of this.

    If the main stream media or another campaign concludes this is fact it will be addressed and then action will be taken.

    I don not believe anything that is negative of this sort pertaining to Ron Paul for i have researched his record and know the truth.

    But as much as i disagree with stormfront and do not support them they are well within thier constitutional right to be racist or morons or idiots. I am for supporting the constitution however i am also strick on upholding the law.

    Last time i checked being an idiot was not against the law.

    Comment by Steve — October 26, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
  38. Doug Mataconis is such a neocon concern troll.

    He claims to be supporting Ron Paul, then downplays every success and beats the drums for every controversy.

    Fucking liar you are, Mataconis.

    Comment by Buckwheat — October 26, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
  39. Ron Paul leads all Republicans in African-American support:

    http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-polling-african-americans.html

    Comment by Buckwheat — October 26, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
  40. Doug, a few questions for you.

    1.How do you feel about Liberty?

    2.Do you think Liberty means supporting free expression for those with whom you agree?

    3.Who are you supporting for POTUS in 2008.

    Comment by gmason — October 26, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
  41. Buckwheat,

    Look who’s calling others trolls. And considering your own failure to heed your “no comments for one month” rule, I think you’re probably the last person here who should be calling anyone a liar.

    While I and some others disagree with Doug’s line of comment on Paul’s campaign at least we can bring up a valid point or two to rebut. You on the other hand are a bitter “truther” who rarely adds anything of value to the debates about Paul and never adds anything of value to subjects besides Ron Paul. Why don’t you go waste someone else’s time with your bullshit?

    Comment by UCrawford — October 26, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
  42. Gmason,

    1. Of course

    2. Black has a right to make whatever contribution he wants, that doesn’t mean that Paul should accept it. Personally, if it was me, I’d return the money immediately rather than be tainted with the earnings of a racist idiot like him.

    3. In the VA primary ? Ron Paul if he’s still in the race. In Nov 08 ? If its the choice I think it will be, I will probably write-in my dog.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 26, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
  43. Doug moralizes about “neo-Nazi hatemongers”, and then moralizes about “abortion rights” i.e. a lobby that really truly wants to kill babies, and strikes a moderate position with the Nuke Muslim crowd but won’t call the architects for the Iraq War or conflict with Iran words like hateful, evil, Traitors.

    Talk about playing to liberal biases on a web site that claims Pat Henry as an heir–how dishonest can one get?

    Doug is not interested in building a coalition, a consensus on the Right, because he is just another Leftist.

    He just wants to moralize from his soapbox.

    And he didn’t even send a donation to Paul, whom he “supports”. Figure it out already.

    Comment by C Bowen — October 26, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
  44. Doug, any comments re:

    Promoting a collectivist view vice a individual view.

    Are things always as they appear at the surface.

    FEMA was caught today having their plants(FEMA employees) ask questions at a news conference attempting to appear as “journalists”.

    If you support Ron Paul, why would you go to the trouble to write in your dog instead of writing in Ron Paul?

    Comment by gmason — October 26, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
  45. Ron Paul’s greatest political strength is his steadfast adherence to core principles. When your platform is built atop the Constitution, and one of your favorite quips is “the message of freedom unites people,” it may not be a good idea to tell someone, “shut up and go away, we don’t want your kind here.”

    What you recommend is, ultimately, pandering. Paul’s campaign, in fact his entire political definition, is about not doing that.

    Comment by tejón — October 26, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
  46. Bowen,

    You’re wrong. I haven’t mentioned abortion once in connection with Ron Paul, or anyone else as far as I know. Frankly, I think the issue gets far more political attention than it deserves.

    And as I said to someone else, what I do with my money is my business. I haven’t given any money to any political candidates in years. I have other priorities.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 26, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
  47. I havent seen anything good on this site except to throw some cheap blows at Ron Paul. How dare you call yourself liberty papers?? Do you know what liberty means? It is ok to take haliburton’s money, blackwater’s money, medical industrial complex money, military industrial complex money , rupert murdock’s money … in hundreds of thousands of dollars but a pesky white group donates $500 wow… it is a huge outcry. Try looking into hillary and guliani finances and see how many red flags you’ll find yet you ignore it as it is business as usual. Ron Paul doesn’t even take donations from corporations because he belives in the power of individual. Why dont you report that??

    Comment by Jack — October 26, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
  48. I find it odd that the leader of a white supremest group would live in West Palm Beach FL. That is basically retired rich Jew land. I hardly think that this is the same Don Black that is a racist neo-nazi. Would he not live some place in Wyoming or Montana where most of them live?

    I find this linking suspect.

    Comment by libertyman — October 26, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
  49. Meet the latest molehill. Same as the old molehills. Examined, diagnosed as a molehill, rat poison of truth tossed down it, moved on to next campaign stop.

    Dr. Paul is not responsible for those he can’t control, plain and simple, whether it be some clueless neo-Nazi donating campaign funds and a banner link over his web page so all 3 of his viewers can see it, or be it us Paul-unteers doing our things around the nation. He should not apologize for something he had nothing to do with.

    Besides, the only reason it’s making any press at all, what little there is, is a desperate attmept to smear Dr. Paul with ANYTHING that might stick. It was the newsletter in the past and that didn’t work, then it was the earmarks and that didn’t work, and now it’s this, and it still doesn’t work. Nothing on his positions on the issues or his goals as President, just painfully depserate and futile attempts at stuff like this.

    In summary, BIG DEAL!

    Comment by Tannim — October 26, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
  50. Paul should accept the money. It sends a good message that he wants to include everyone in the quest for liberty, including white supremacists. Everyone is welcome. Freedom brings people together.

    Comment by Drena — October 26, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
  51. Can anyone remind me of the last time Ron Paul placed fear of unfounded criticism over fidelity to constitutional principles? What do you think the odds are that he’ll opt for appearances over free speech?

    We’ve hashed this out before. If Ron Paul donates to Stormfront, he has a problem. If they donate to him, it’s free speech from a group that you and I don’t agree with. We could filter every donation to every candidate by the sensibilities of every observer, and we’d be left with only self-funded candidates. Smears like this only have credibility if you give them undue substance by buying into the fallacy.

    Then again, maybe the solution is to demand that Stormfront can only donate to Ron Paul’s campaign if they can successfully post the announcement on red state dot com.

    Comment by Akston — October 27, 2007 @ 5:01 am
  52. I heard Rep. Paul say that he would not accept the endorsement of President Bush. I thought that was the right think to say. I find it interesting that many of his supporters place more value on the endorsement of neo-nazis than he does on the endorsement of the President.

    Comment by Bob — October 27, 2007 @ 5:39 am
  53. “And as I said to someone else, what I do with my money is my business.”

    And so this isn’t the case for Stormfront?

    Comment by Eli — October 27, 2007 @ 11:44 am
  54. Eli,

    They can give their money to whomever they want.

    That doesn’t mean the recipient has to accept it and, in this case, the recipient shouldn’t

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 27, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
  55. I see no problem that Don Black donated to Ron Paul’s campaign. In fact I applaud his efforts.

    What I do see a problem with are the neo-Zionists supporting Clinton, Giulani, Obama and the other presidential candidates. This support is a danger not only to Americans but to all freedom loving people of the world!

    Comment by John Ubele — October 27, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
  56. Neo-nazis and white supremists have been part of the Republican milieu for over 75 years. This is not a Ron Paul problem, but a GOP problem – and to hell with the GOP.

    Comment by longwalksinparis.blogspot.com — October 28, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
  57. [...] another choice quote, this time from the comments at The Liberty Papers. I see no problem that Don Black donated to Ron Paul’s campaign. In fact I applaud his [...]

    Pingback by MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Why Jew-haters love Ron Paul — October 29, 2007 @ 5:23 am
  58. I don’t see anyone saying they don’t want Sharpton’s money (the biggest “racist” of them all).
    This is a joke.

    Comment by John — November 7, 2007 @ 11:07 am
  59. Do people who want to live in a community like the one they grew up in have to be labeled “supremacists” by people who believe in “liberty”?

    Comment by James Bowery — November 7, 2007 @ 3:53 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