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

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”     Leo Tolstoy

November 14, 2007

The Ron Paul-Neo Nazi Story Isn’t Going Away

by Doug Mataconis

There have been several posts here at The Liberty Papers about the support that Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign has received from neo-nazi groups like Stormfront and such illustrious personalities as former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. So far, those reports haven’t made it into the mainstream media; but, if Paul continues to show the kind of success he has over the past several weeks, he’s going to come under more media scrutiny, and, as this piece at the conservative American Thinker shows, there’s enough out there for an enterprising reporter to make something out of:

When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, >DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: “such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, “When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don’t believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society.”

Ron Paul is different.

(….)

On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an “Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul” on TownHall.com. It reads:

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation’s leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the “comforts and amenities” provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.

Does Ron Paul support the views of these people ? Of course I don’t believe that he does, but that’s not the point.

The point is that the campaign is becoming associated with groups that espouse ideas that ordinary Americans who might otherwise find something worth voting for will, quite rightfully, find repulsive. In the context of a contested election that you actually want to win, no campaign can afford to allow that to happen. I’d also think that most Paul supporters wouldn’t want to be associated with people who would pervert a message of freedom to such an extent that it would justify racial discrimination and bigotry, not to mention a belief in wacky conspiracy theories.

I’ve been criticized before for bringing this issue up, and I’m sure the same thing will happen again this time, but this is something that needs to be said because you can’t live in a fantasy world where actions, more specifically the failure to act when necessary, doesn’t have consequences.

Finally, this wouldn’t require much from the campaign. It would be fairly easy for the campaign, and the candidate, to repudiate these groups publicly and the earlier it’s done the better because, as things stand now, I can almost guarantee that this issue will come up at the next debate. And then, they’ll have to deal with it.

Update: Andrew Sullivan, who has defended Paul from some of the more scurrilous Nazi stories makes this point:

I see no reason why the campaign should not return any money given by neo-Nazis who are subsequently identified as such. But Jonah [Goldberg of National Review] is right that this whole thing tells us more about Paul’s amateurism in rapid-response than anything else.

The thing is the rapid-response that’s needed isn’t that hard to do.

Related Posts:

An Endorsement Ron Paul Should Repudiate Immediately
Is Ron Paul’s Campaign Being Hijacked By the Whacko Fringe ?
More On Stormfront And The Ron Paul Campaign
Ron Paul And The Nazis: My Take

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/11/14/the-ron-paul-neo-nazi-story-isnt-going-away/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

86 Comments

  1. If you don’t think that Paul supports the views of these people, then you are being a cunt.

    Comment by Fluffy — November 14, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
  2. This neo-nazi story is just nonsense, nothing more. If white supremacists shop at Wal-Mart, does Wal-Mart have to “repudiate these groups publicly?” Obviously not, because Wal-Mart has nothing to do with white supremacy and neither does Ron Paul.

    Comment by D.L. Mitchell — November 14, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
  3. The Ron Paul-Neo Nazi Story Isn’t Going Away

    Fortunately, Fred “Dud” Thompson IS going away. He’s practically made himself invisible at this point.

    Comment by GeneG — November 14, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
  4. DL,

    Your analogy is flawed.

    If Stormfront endorsed Wal-Mart publicly and put a banner on it’s website for people to go buy stuff there, don’t you think Wal-Mart would react to that ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
  5. At first I though Doug just wasn’t that media savvy, linking to an article in the American Thinker, but after a month or two, I realized he is just a phony.

    He neither thinks this story has legs or thinks its a real threat to the Ron Paul campaign, he just wants to show the beltway types that he is one of them and maybe they will invite him out for a drink.

    Comment by C Bowen — November 14, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
  6. I have said this before on this site because liberty papers just won’t leave it alone so let me say it again.

    If this is the best you guys can do your in big trouble come election day believe that.

    Why don’t you spend some time debating Ron Pauls platform instead of this crap you keep trying to feed us.

    Let the propaganda games continue.

    Comment by steve — November 14, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
  7. My question is why would fascists support a libertarian?

    Comment by JT — November 14, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
  8. a person, an american, is free to hate just as much as they are free to love.

    to infringe on someones rights to hate is wrong even if you think you are morally correct.

    i don’t think he should denounce the groups or them personally. denounce the message as something the dr. doesnt subscribe to.

    i think the more you fight associating with them, the more you acknowledge them.

    i would take their money and their vote and win the presidency.

    Comment by brian — November 14, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
  9. The only reason it isn’t going away is because this website never shuts up about it. The campaign has already responded to these ridiculous allegations. It’s BORING already…….

    Comment by Maris — November 14, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
  10. Why would fascists support a libertarian?

    Maybe because all the abusive federal powers currently being deployed against Arab Americans were invented and first tried out on white nationalist groups.

    It’s all there: the spying, the infiltration, the agents provocateur, the abuse of firearms law, the “inventive” use of the courts to try to find backdoor ways to criminalize speech or create tort liability for speech, the profiling based on appearance, etc. Now, you may think that white supremacists DESERVE the Feds cracking down on them in these ways, but surely it seems logical to assume that the white supremacists themselves don’t like it very much, and might support a candidate who doesn’t think the government should have the power to do that kind of stuff?

    I bet white supremacists love their ACLU lawyers, too, and pass around the business cards of the better ones. Maybe talk about them in their chat rooms. Does this mean that the ACLU is “associated” with fascism? Come on, don’t make me laugh.

    Comment by Fluffy — November 14, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
  11. Maris,

    I’ve only posted three times about this issue — if I wrote a post everytime something related to this topic showed up in my aggregator or on Memeorandum, I’d be doing two or three posts a week.

    If someone’s driving this story, it ain’t me.

    Steve,

    Have you read anything I’ve written. I agree with the 95% of the platform, probably more. This isn’t about issues, it’s about campaign strategy and not being associated with people who can only damage you.

    C Bowen,

    Trust me, I don’t do write anything hoping to get invited to bars in D.C. — they’re far too boring for my taste.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
  12. Andrew Sullivan described it better in his article yesterday than I have the time to do (yet again):

    The Ron-Paul-Is-A-Closet-Nazi meme continues. It seems to me that there are a lot of reasons to oppose Ron Paul. Jamie Kirchick’s vision of US foreign policy is one of them. But to say that a single $500 contribution from a neo-Nazi crackpot is somehow “keeping company” with fascists is absurd. Michael Goldfarb asks:

    Andrew, are you not troubled at all by the creeps who’ve signed on to the Paul campaign, or the fact that he is so completely unperturbed by their support that he has yet to distance himself in any way from it? Maybe not–Sullivan’s “simple message” to Ron Paul supporters: “You’re welcome here.” That includes the Nazis, or no?

    There are plenty of reasons to be perturbed when loons and hate-mongers support a candidacy. But this game of guilt-by-association can be played endlessly. I tend to place greater emphasis on loons and hate-mongers that candidates actively seek out. Pat Robertson is a loon and an anti-Semite and a vicious homophobe who blamed Americans for 9/11. Giuliani didn’t receive some unsolicited money from him; he actually stood on a platform and embraced him. Why one standard for Paul and another for Giuliani? If Obama embraced Louis Farrakhan as a supporter, you think Goldfarb and Kirchick would be silent? They’d have a cow because it’s unthinkable. But naked bigotry is more than thinkable in today’s GOP: it’s integral to it. What’s the difference between Farrakhan and Robertson? I can’t see any. Maybe Goldfarb and Kirchick can spell it out.

    Giuliani also promoted and endorsed a seriously mobbed up man to be head of the DHS; he fully embraces and employs a priest credibly accused of sex abuse of a minor (and refuses to distance himself from him); and actively endorses torture as a foreign policy weapon. Jamie Kirchick actually supports Giuliani for president – but is hyper-ventilating about a $500 check that Paul hasn’t even decided what to do with! There you have the massive double-standards on the neocon right.

    Here’s an idea: when Giuliani disowns his abusing priest, his mafia-consigliere and his anti-Semitic nutcase, Ron Paul should send back the $500. Deal?

    Comment by Akston — November 14, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
  13. Mataconis is right. Ron Paul should take a moment to say that he defends the right of people to express repellent viewpoints, but that he does not share them and does not want their endorsement or money. And then he can go back to whatever else he’s doing. It’s painless, effortless, and costless.

    Comment by Joshua Holmes — November 14, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
  14. Doug,

    No, and why should they? Who cares what some fringe group says or does with its money? Ron Paul has nothing to do with white supremacy. He doesn’t share their views, he isn’t courting their vote, and he isn’t promising them favors. He isn’t guilty of anything. Any association with these groups is entirely one-sided.

    Imagine that some pro-choice person donates to Ron Paul. Does Ron Paul then have to publicly repudiate the pro-choice view? Of course not, because everyone knows that Ron Paul doesn’t somehow inherit the views of eveyone that contributes to his campaign. This whole neo-nazi story is just the demented fantasy of one of Paul’s enemies.

    Comment by D.L. Mitchell — November 14, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
  15. What a crock! Why is Medved trying to make Ron Paul accountable for what his supporters think. Making a big production out of a neo-nazi giving him money; where is he talking about the Bush family FUNDING Hitler and getting their bank taken away for trading with the enemy. It’s amazing what does and doesn’t get reported and the degree that some stories never end and some that people need to know have never hit the presses.

    Comment by mike — November 14, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
  16. This writer knows how the media works and is being disingenuous.

    Like it or not, in today’s 24 hour news cycle a “disavowal” of anything is equal to an admission of wrongdoing. That’s just the way it is. If you “disavow” somebody, the MSM automatically assumes your guilt and plays it as an apology. And being “guilty” of an association with neo-nazis is just about as bad as it gets.

    Comment by diesel mcfadden — November 14, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
  17. I love the internet. All this stupidity is getting responded to. Imagine if this had just hit the MSM, with no way to respond. Discerning individuals reading up on Paul are getting a very unflattering opinion of his opponents. 80 percent of America is online baby! Few people sympathetic to Paul are being turned off by this BS, but plenty are finding reason to distance themselves from his attackers. I read alot of message boards and blogs, only predisposed Paul haters are buying this stuff.

    Comment by Fubarb — November 14, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
  18. Right on Diesel, white nationalists(nazi’s would not support Paul) are not infuencing Paul. He can’t be bought. If anything, hopefully he is influencing them. I know some showed up in Philadelphia and had to stand with the blacks and jews that were there.

    Comment by Fubarb — November 14, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
  19. I hope it doesn’t go away yet. That $500 has led to a ton of free publicity. Let it peak first, gees. New voters don’t go to American Thinker or the nefarious blogroll that loves to have a circle jerk every time RP farts. They go to RonPaul2008.com.
    These stories only serve to make RP’ers that much move motivated to spread the real word about the good man.

    Comment by Curtis — November 14, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
  20. Fubarb,

    Don’t kid yourself, or the rest of us.

    “White nationalists” are nazis who don’t want to call themselves nazis.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
  21. Doug Mataconis wrote: “Your analogy is flawed. If Stormfront endorsed Wal-Mart publicly and put a banner on it’s website for people to go buy stuff there, don’t you think Wal-Mart would react to that?”

    Actually your analogy is wrong. What if white supremacist endorsed Barrack Obama on their website, should he also redact that? This whole notion that Ron Paul has to apologize or disassociate himself from every nut supporting him is just ludicrous. I’m sure there are nuts supporting some of the other candidates, so what? Who cares? It’s a free country, at least still. It is just ridiculous, and REALLY UN-AMERICAN. America is supposed to support ALL ideas, even if they are so vile and against your personal beliefs.

    Since when should we begin to apologize for what other people believe? I know people of all beliefs, some racists, but that doesn’t mean I agree with them, or that I share their vile views. In other words, there are plenty of racist in this country, black, white, Hispanic, Asians etc and they all work, but according to your logic they we should probably fire them all or make public statements that we reject their ideas. Again, guilt by association is nonsense, at least to some extend. NOW, if Ron Paul chose a Skinhead or member of the KKK as his running mate, THEN he would have some explaining to do, which brings me to Heir Rudolph Giuliani who has KNOWN criminals associated with him and who he appointed to high public places. Where is the same outcry over that from you? How about Bill Clinton’s brother who got caught on tape talking about selling crack to n@gg@rs in the school year. Shouldn’t Bill and Hilary react to that?

    Forget about race for second, how about just nutty people with nutty ideas. Shouldn’t we first decide WHO is to decide what is and isn’t a nutty idea, or right or wrong?

    Please don’t stretch this issue to a place where it never went.

    Comment by Brian Middleton — November 14, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
  22. Ron should pretty much wait for the candidates to ask that question to him directly, then come back and mention everything than Andrew Sullivan mentions in his article, that would shut Giuliani up pretty quickly.

    Comment by Matt — November 14, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
  23. Matt,

    That isn’t answering the question, it’s dodging it.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
  24. Brian,

    What if white supremacist endorsed Barrack Obama on their website, should he also redact that?

    Then he should denounce that endorsement, just as any smart campaign should do.

    Forget about race for second, how about just nutty people with nutty ideas. Shouldn’t we first decide WHO is to decide what is and isn’t a nutty idea, or right or wrong?

    Well, it’s a judgment that people usually make individually. But I think I’m right when I think that most Americans will find the Stormfront crowd nutty, not to mention the 9/11 Truthers and the Bilderberger Conspiracy wackos.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
  25. Doug,

    This issue isn’t going to go away anytime soon. That’s cause the enemies of the campaign are going to pound and pound on it. Because they can.

    I think the campaign has already answered it. The fund-raising manager blatantly said that they’ll accept all legal donations and use it to spread Dr. Paul’s message. This stance is not enough for those who want Dr. Paul to repudiate the neo-nazi message.

    I couldn’t careless. I’d say the only effective way to destroy the neo-nazi message is for its own adherents to repudiate it, and that require more dialog rather than less. The best way to dissipate the awful implications would be if a former neo-nazi follower confessed that participating in the campaign helped him put aside his prejudices. In the meantime, this story is going have legs and it’s going to run and run.

    Comment by TanGeng — November 14, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
  26. A lot of mainstream polls show that most of the country does not believe the official 9/11 story… Bill Clinton was fined for attending a Bilderberg meeting… Gravity was once considered nutty as was the Earth not being flat or the center of the universe.

    Comment by Fritz — November 14, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
  27. TanGeng,

    This issue isn’t going to go away anytime soon. That’s cause the enemies of the campaign are going to pound and pound on it. Because they can.

    Welcome to the real world of politics. That’s how things have been in America for, oh about, 200 years or so.

    If you think this is bad, do some research and see what they were saying about Thomas Jefferson 200 years ago, or Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election.

    The fund-raising manager blatantly said that they’ll accept all legal donations and use it to spread Dr. Paul’s message. This stance is not enough for those who want Dr. Paul to repudiate the neo-nazi message.

    And, I submit, it won’t be enough for a good portion of the American public either.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
  28. So what if Paul takes the money? Are his positions racist or anti-semetic?

    Common, this is the internet generation. Trumped up scandals bore us (hint, we have google, we know the bullshit).

    Find something real before declaring a scandal.

    Comment by jmklein — November 14, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
  29. no one cares about theblabertypapers.

    Comment by ArabAmerican — November 14, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
  30. “If Stormfront endorsed Wal-Mart publicly and put a banner on it’s website for people to go buy stuff there, don’t you think Wal-Mart would react to that ?”

    No?

    Comment by emeritus — November 14, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
  31. Emeritus,

    Then you need an education in corporate PR.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
  32. I’m sure white supremist would love to hear the message of liberty. Just as I am sure The Black Panthers would love the message. What’s your point? The real point should be “Hey, look at this, all races can get behind this man regaurdless of their own personal belief.

    Comment by Ian — November 14, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
  33. [...] The Ron Paul neo-nazi storyis most asuredly going away [...]

    Pingback by Ron Paul Radio :: I WILL NOT SERVE | Wednesday’s show… — November 14, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
  34. Ian,

    If you think the Nazis are suddenly turning into freedom-loving libertarians, you’re kidding yourself.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
  35. Doug Mataconis, you didn’t address all my questions or statement. In any event, are we living in the Divided States of America, or the United States of America? I find it really interesting that every other candidate essentially DIVIDES the nation, but somehow Ron Paul gets people from all walks of life to support him. What’s more American than that? Should we exclude the people with vile beliefs?

    Your whole premise of denouncing or disassociating yourself from certain groups does exactly what they do, isolate. You don’t have to agree with them, but should we not fight for their right to say and do what they want? Ron Paul brings people together, even those you don’t agree with. Is that not what this country is all about?

    Comment by Brian Middleton — November 14, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
  36. Why Ron Paul is the anti-Nazi:

    Actual Nazis thought preemptively invading other countries for national security was okay. Kind of like all the other top tier candidates. Ron Paul opposes preemptive war.

    Actual Nazis thought spying on your people with secret police was crucial for homeland security. Kind of like all the other top tier candidates. Ron Paul opposes domestic spying and secret police.

    Actual Nazis implemented gun registration and then confiscation from groups their government defined as questionable, allowing the subsequent imprisonment in detention camps and wholesale slaughter of those individuals. Kind of like all the other top tier candidates, to one degree or another. Ron Paul opposes any form of gun control.

    Comment by Craig — November 14, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
  37. Brian,

    Do you think that uniting with racists and anti-semites is a good idea ?

    What good could someone like David Duke or anyone who agrees with him bring to the pro-liberty agenda that would outweigh the harm he would cause ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
  38. Craig,

    I never said Ron Paul was a Nazi, anti-semitic or anything of the like. I said that his campaign needs to disassociate itself publicly from a group of people who have appropriated this particular candidate to promote their own, anti-liberty, agenda.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
  39. “there’s enough out there for an enterprising reporter (with no integrety whatsoever) to make something out of”

    Johnny, what do you make of this?

    This? I can make a hat, I can make a brooch, I can make a pterodactyl…

    Comment by McCroskey — November 14, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
  40. “At first I though Doug just wasn’t that media savvy, linking to an article in the American Thinker, but after a month or two, I realized he is just a phony.

    He neither thinks this story has legs or thinks its a real threat to the Ron Paul campaign, he just wants to show the beltway types that he is one of them and maybe they will invite him out for a drink.”

    Correct, Doug has claimed here that he intends to vote for Ron Paul and supports his candidacy, yet his writing — fanning the dying flames of non-stories like this — shows that he is a hooked-into-the-system neocon pretending to be a libertarian. I have my suspicions that this whole “Liberty Papers” site is actually a neocon front, don’t see much proof that it’s genuine. Even his co-blogger Jason Pye says on his personal blog that he’s not voting for Paul. Some libertarians!

    There are very wealthy people and organizations who pay a lot of money for people to blog on their behalf. I’d be shocked if the Liberty Papers weren’t just such a front.

    Comment by Buckwheat — November 14, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
  41. Doug,

    What I meant was they love the freedom to hate whoever they want. Can you call them freedom hating for “that”?

    Comment by Ian — November 14, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
  42. I don’t understand why the Paul supporters are so adamant that Paul not publically repudiate these people. I assume that none of the Paul supporters here are white supremecists or neo-nazis. I doubt any of Paul’s supporters here are fans of National Socialism. So, why shouldn’t Paul take a painless and costless step and publically repudiate those idiots?

    Comment by Joshua Holmes — November 14, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
  43. The Ron Paul campaign should make a $500 donation to The Jewish Guild for the Blind in the name of Stormfront.

    Ends the issue.

    Comment by Oscar DeGrouch — November 14, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
  44. *Debate Moderator: do you associate with these groups, Mr. Paul?

    *Paul: of course not. I oppose the beliefs of their type. Keep in mind, though, that I run on a platform of freedom, so I can do no more than disagree with their philosophy.

    *DM: But, Mr. Paul if I may. Don’t you think that by not returning monies given to you by these groups that you might send a message of acceptance towards these groups?

    *Paul: No. Now, answer this: would the money be better off I my hands or theirs? If they donate to my campaign, it’s less money they have to spread their negitive ideas.

    *DM: Moving along, now…

    To me, it can be a simply as that.

    Comment by Jeffrey Bubb — November 14, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
  45. Here’s a story that won’t go away..hopefully. Judith Regan is suing Rupert Murdoch for wrongful termination. Apparently, she is the ex-lover of Kerik, and was told by Fox to lie to Federal Investigators in order to protect the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani. What a mess Rudy is in.. his cronyism with Kerik isn’t bad enough.. if Murdoch is found guilty of trying to stack the deck to get Rudy elected.. you can put a fork in him. That leaves Rudy’s imaginary 29% in the polls vs. Romney, McCain, and Thomson all at 12%.. Huck at 8% and Ron Paul at 6%. When Rudy goes down, this campaign is totally up for grabs.

    Comment by Bob A — November 14, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
  46. I find it amusing that this continues, First of all, even though i disagree with the neo-nazi ideas. I do support freedom of ideas. One could say don’t take money from religious people because some of the support wars that kill innocent people and they hate people of faiths. All groups take money from places others don’t like. The fear of this is that power of organizations like this can influence leaders as some Christians organizations do. It that right no, is the money given back no. As for Ron Paul I know he can’t be bought so I don’t worry about it.

    Comment by David — November 14, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
  47. Doug Mataconis wrote: “Brian, Do you think that uniting with racists and anti-semites is a good idea ?”

    No, but I don’t think it is a good idea in a free society to exclude them. That is really my point. We are much better off all being united rather than divided, regardless of what you think of other people’s beliefs.

    Doug Mataconis wrote: “What good could someone like David Duke or anyone who agrees with him bring to the pro-liberty agenda that would outweigh the harm he would cause ?”

    What I do think would come out good, is if the different groups that so vehemently disagree can sit down and come some some mutual agreement, even if it means agree to disagree. I think David Duke and others like him are complete idiots on so many levels, but that doens’t mean he shouldn’t be able to support whomever he wants to support, and that candidate not be ridiculed or labeled with guilt by association.

    Comment by Brian Middleton — November 14, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
  48. if the ron paul campaign is smart they wont disavow the donation or the donator at least until the msm catches on to the story and gives him a chance to defend his position and if they dont then the american public will sense somthing fishy. would anyone know about hillary if she didnt go through the healthcare fiasco or the monica lewinsky scandal, if dr. paul wants get through the media blackout he needs to defend himself through a negative media story

    Comment by plubius_reborn — November 14, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
  49. Buckwheat,

    There are very wealthy people and organizations who pay a lot of money for people to blog on their behalf. I’d be shocked if the Liberty Papers weren’t just such a front.

    Once again, you’ve lied about me, and about everyone else who posts here.

    I’d ask you to produce evidence to support your accusation, but you and I both know it doesn’t exist. And at least I have the guts not to hide behind a pseudonym.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 14, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
  50. This is insane. I’ve defended you against people saying you were writing hit pieces before, but if you’re leaping on this bandwagon, your ethics are seriously in question.

    Comment by N. Pannbacker — November 14, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
  51. Ron Paul can answer the question if it comes up. Otherwise, he can ignore it. Nobody is watching this except wonks like Medved and no matter what Dr. Paul said Medved would still hassle him.

    If the Paul campaign is smart it will ignore this as a non-story, which it is to anybody clever enough to discern the difference between a contributor and a candidate. Can you imagine the PR? “Dr. Paul is not a Nazi.” It’s utterly ludicrous. If he returns the money, all he’ll get is questions like “why do you feel the need to distance yourself from racists and Jew-haters?”

    It’s a retard MSM game.

    Comment by rho — November 14, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
  52. “ArabAmerican”

    no one cares about theblabertypapers.

    But you care enough to post that…

    Comment by Kevin — November 14, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
  53. Please, if your journalistic intellect can only conjure weak juvenile rhetoric like your past examples, you would be in better suited company whilst pinching playmates in the neighborhood playground sandbox and your boss (who ever that may be) needs a better proxy hate stump. You offer nothing, a simplistic echo chamber reverberating the sounds of painful insignificance and political shortsightedness. Our memories of this will remain long. Your website’s trappings in Liberty are that as the word Federal in Federal Reserve. Add something you idiotic twit, why should one not vote for Mr. Ron Paul? Oh yes, you are no “enterprising reporter”, for it is now abundantly clear.

    Comment by Rich — November 14, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
  54. LOL, it looks like everyone’s a Nazi now-a-days.

    The Republicans are Nazis, the Democrats are Nazis, Feminists are Nazis, Bush is a Nazi, Rudy JulieAnnie is a cross-dressing Nazi, Hillary (lol Hitlary) is a Nazi, Backwards muslim extremists living in caves are Nazis and people who eat meat are Nazis.

    Hell, even I’ve been called a Nazi from time to time, just because my parents are German immigrants.

    And now Ron Paul is a Nazi as well.

    Nevermind that Ron Paul is a libertarian and therefore opposed to collectivism in all it’s forms, whose greatest heros are a couple jews that fled the holocaust. Jews that inspired him to get into politics in the first place, jews that played an important part in starting the whole damn libertarian movement he spent his whole political career fighting for.

    It’s getting to the point where I don’t even know what the fuck a nazi is actually supposed to be anymore.

    Next thing you know some jackass with a blog or TV/Radio Show is gonna try and tell me that Ludwig Von Mises and Anne Rand were Nazis.

    Meanwhile every lunatic with a chip on their shoulder is popping out of the woodwork to exploit 6 million dead jews to further their idealogical and political agendas.

    I bet those Jews would have felt a lot better about the whole thing if they could only have known that their persecution and death – AT THE HANDS OF A TOTALITARIAN (NOT LIBERTARIAN) GOVERNMENT I MIGHT ADD – would be used 60 years later to sling muck in a US presidential campaign.

    As a Libertarian, I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. That said, I think it would be awesome if we could enact a new law that required anyone who spuriously accused others of being Nazis to be immediately given a Zyklon B shower and then thrown into a fucking oven.

    Whose with me?

    In the meantime, I have no worries about an alleged “Nazi” donating money to Ron Paul. Only a total crank desperate for attention would even raise the issue, because no serious journalist with a reputation to protect would try and make a story out of it considering Ron Paul’s background.

    Comment by Fred — November 14, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
  55. I get to post one of my favorite quotes again:

    “Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed. “

    – Anna Quindlen

    If the Ron Paul campaign sifted through the names of every contributor, investigated the history and affiliations of each, and allowed anyone (friend or opponent) to define who should not be worthy of contributing, that’s all they would ever have the time to do. And they would be handing control of their financing to anyone who wanted it.

    Ron Paul is running as the principled, constitutional candidate. He is not running as the slick gamesman who will say anything to anyone simply to be inoffensive. People can actually count on him to be a gentleman, yet tell the truth. That value FAR exceeds any he could hope to gain by pandering to short-sighted speech censors.

    Finding out what Ron Paul himself espouses is easy. There are countless speeches, articles, and videos of his honest and consistent opinions easily available on the net.

    Comment by Akston — November 14, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
  56. In warfare there is an axiom “a tactic known is a tactic blown”. For a number of years the American people have been deceived into believing there are two very different sides in the great war for freedom, the fascist and communist. As we look closer into the real history we see there is another side a hidden side that is neutral and willing to play with both sides against the American People to steal our wealth and our freedom.

    We have seen how a rise of fascism is always backed by big money, and we have also seen how communism is also always backed by big money. We also find there is a hidden third neutral side connecting the blue and red sides, we find this hidden side is really the side that is in control of both the other sides. Only when one fully succeeds in taking power does this side show it’s self, no matter what izem is in power and this side has no issue conducing it self with impunity and with ruthlessness to obtain what ever goal is desired. These sides are like the right and left arm of a body politic.

    With this understanding of history and logic of the hidden neutral side running it would seem reasonable in order to protect the izem games that steals our wealth, robs our freedom, and destroys our country, some “third side person” would jump up and down and screaming “anti-izems”. This may seem to be a great tactic to inject poison into the Paul campaign and begin the meltdown. IF it were not populated by thoughtful and intellegent people who connect with Dr. Paul on a very deep trust level.

    Dr. Paul is a doctor… he is Pro not Anti anything…he is for not against everthing…he is positive not negative…he is for light not darkness… he is for love not hate…No matter what these third party people say with their words of poison.. they are full of hate..they are pro hate..all the while they preach against hate…they hate all the same..How do we know this because we are not against anyone..or any thing..Those who are always are talking about the hate..and fear…they are just looking in the mirror…they talk about them selves and it isnt pretty. It is because that is all they can see..that is all they can hear..that is all they can feel….hate and fear…

    We are ALL Gods children…none better than any other…We are all the same…

    We know why they are afraid of Dr. Paul. It is because of his message and the uncanny support for it, despite the controlled media blackout, This is a sign that the end of darkness is near, and soon there will be no ears to hear those who chant these angry words of poison, and cast their evil spells with their words with evil intent.

    Peace…

    Comment by david — November 14, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
  57. These racist groups are just seeking publicity by supporting Ron Paul. Ron Paul should in no way address them. Medved and others raise this issue because they know even by asking Ron Paul to condemn these groups it will reflect badly on Ron Paul and bring him negative attention.

    Comment by Sean — November 14, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
  58. You make some odd arguments. One of the greatest things that our troops ever fought for was the right to free assembly and free speech. It is not as if these nuts are working for Ron Paul, but to tell people that only a “certain type” of person is an acceptable supporter is just a slippery slope from eliminating the first amendment altogether.

    The beauty about Ron Paul is that he brings people together, even the odd ones. Perhaps under his tutelage they will learn some tolerance as I would hope you would too.

    No candidate can screen all of their supporters and if you are really upset about who is representing Ron Paul then you really won’t like who is helping good old Rudy.

    The white supremacists have to go somewhere and as much as I abhor their policies, I do not deny them the rights that our soldiers gave their blood to protect.

    Thank God we live in a free society, sometimes however, that comes with costs that we just have to learn to accept.

    I am a 65 year old ex-political science professor who is Jewish and has had an awful lot of time to think about people who say simply terrible things. I have come to the conclusion that freedom is worth the price.

    Hopefully, you will too.

    Hating people for hating others is really no different than what they do. I try not to fall into the same traps as those kinds of people.

    Ron Paul is a man of great principle and we can all learn a lot from him.

    And Go Fluffy! Way to speak freely!

    People, it is time that we all put this piece of trash on the same list as RedState.com That is never ever click on another story of theirs again. We have the power to let this horrid website die like Redstate and other hate mongers.

    Liberty papers, you have nothing to do with liberty and it is time we all get a break from your vile filth. No need to waste our precious brains with your evil manipulative, vindictive, and vicious stories about Ron Paul.

    Why don’t you do a piece about all the other people who support the other candidates? Oh, that wouldn’t attack Ron Paul would it? You only run cruel pieces designed to hurt people.

    Karma doesn’t like mean.

    You are mean.

    Comment by George — November 14, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
  59. OOps read Fluffy’s comments wrong there. I didn’t see the word don’t. Now, had he said “If you think that Paul supports the views of these people, then you are being a cunt.” then I would be behind him. As it is, I think the title belongs better to both the writer of the piece of trash article and Fluffy.

    Comment by George — November 14, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
  60. Not only are these smears against Ron Paul, but they’re smears against white priders. And, the author of this article takes part in this smear. Most white nationalists aren’t neo-Nazi’s nor fascists. They’re simply white nationalists. I’ve never heard of a fascist supporting laissez-faire economics.

    Comment by Drena — November 14, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
  61. The Paul campaign already stated in a press conference that if anyone donates to Paul that Paul disagrees with “it’s their loss” and Paul’s gain. There is no reason to return the money. It’s better in Paul’s hands than theirs.

    Comment by Drena — November 14, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
  62. And why isn’t the story going away? Because you are writing about it. You ARE the problem. I agree with George. I have seen nothing but nasty pieces from you trying to get ratings by writing horrid stories about Ron Paul so you can get lots of comments.

    Well, I too am done.

    Doug, you are a fool, a racist, and just plain old wrong. You are a Marxist and or a totalitarian I can’t tell which but you are completely anti-American.

    Comment by Kyle — November 14, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
  63. I guess one can only contribute to a campaign if they’re a convicted drug trafficker or spy for the PRC.

    Seriously, why does it matter? As much as neo-Nazis disgust me, political contributions are a form of free speech. The spirit of the 1st Amendment was intended to protect controversial speech – however distasteful it may. Of course, the statists would love to change this with their assorted frothing-at-the-mouth promotion of hate speech laws.

    Comment by Anthony S — November 14, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
  64. if dr. paul gets more coverage from this in the msm then i’d ignore the story until people start asking him about his reasons for it in the main stream media, that way he will break through the media blackout but for now the only people covering it are those inthe fringe media(no offense intended) if he’s smart(and he is) then he’ll ignore it as a non-story untill the mainstream media raises these question and the more coverage this gets in fringe media sites(again, no offense) the more likely it is that the msm will pick up the story, and we all know how much they love to smear dr.paul

    Comment by plubius_reborn — November 14, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
  65. I think you are missing the biggest point. The whole point of freedom is that people are allowed to hold whatever views they would like to, as long as they do not physically harm others. It does not matter how disgusting and horrible, or how wonderful and beautiful those ideas are. For it is the unpopular viewpoints that need protection. The popular ones do not need protection because they are popular and accepted. This is the very essence of freedom and liberty. I support freedom to the end and their for I support the right for people to hold unpopular views.

    Comment by Jay — November 14, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
  66. RP should give the nazi money to the holocaust museum or some such.

    Comment by zulubanshee — November 14, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
  67. It’s clear that Doug is an RP supporter who thinks RP would be wise to forthrightly denounce and refund the contributions of any white supremacists or anti-semites who have donated to his campaign. Many commenters disagree. I also disagree, but it’s the sort of issue that doesn’t have a clear, unambiguous answer. Other writers on the Web whose pro-RP bona fides are not in question agree with Doug. It’s past time that all of us behind RP accept that we are not going to necessarily agree with each other or with the campaign on every decision and be determined that we are going to discuss differences in a constructive manner. Doug’s offered his opinion in good faith & the rest of us should respond in like manner.

    It’s clear that folks like Frum, Medved, Beck, & Horowitz cannot be satisfied; their antipathy for RP is too deep. The issue is the fence sitters & their reaction. For now, the campaign’s answer is adequate. It has the merit of being a once & for all answer. Let’s see what happens. The problem with repudiating these contributors is that there is no end to answering such challenges from those determinedly hostile to RP. As soon as you’ve refunded one or a hundred contributions, new allegations will be forthcoming. Just yesterday, I believe it was Frum or another of similar ilk, perhaps on the Weekly Standard site, who said all the 4.2 mil ought to be refunded because raised in the name of a terrorist.

    Doug is absolutely right that as the campaign continues this issue will continue to arise & the day may come when the campaign decides it’s being hurt by the allegations & concludes it must respond in a different way.

    Comment by T.R. — November 14, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
  68. Of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the best! Support our troops and bring them home.

    Can this false accusation stop now?
    Paul campaign responds to LST re: Nazi gold

    Moderator:
    At the very least, will Paul personally state publicly, vigorously and unmistakably that he rejects the support of white supremacists, and that he will not knowingly tolerate their involvement with his campaign in any form or to any degree?

    Ron Paul campain worker:
    Until three days ago, neither Dr. Paul nor anyone else in the campaign had any idea who Don Black was or is. We’ve never met or communicated with him. We did not solicit his support.

    It is certainly unfortunate that the campaign’s donation banner is on his site. We’re not rushing to spend a lot of time reading what’s over there, but what you’ve described is certainly repugnant, and completely anathema to everything Dr. Paul stands for.

    Read the full text here:
    http://www.lonestartimes.com/2007/10/30/rpb2/

    Comment by Kurt — November 14, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
  69. The bottom line is, if the $500 donated by Stormfront is going to cost us votes, GET RID OF IT!!!! This is not that hard an issue. The Ron Paul Campaign is not the government. There is no freedom of speech or liberty issue involved. The campaign has the right to associate with whoever they want, they can shut up who they want and refuse money from anyone they want.

    The mere fact that the argument is ongoing should be enough to make the campaing VOLUNTARILY give the money to The Holocaust Memorial or some such organization and publicly state that any future donations will be put into a trust from which scholarships for Jewish students will be created.

    Why, oh why, would we want to get bogged down in such an inflammatory issue when there are so many others that the whole country is behind us on???

    Comment by Anthony — November 14, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
  70. I can’t see how these allegations could possibly hurt Ron Paul’s campaign.

    Ron Paul is not a Nazi.

    Anyone who isn’t a drooling cretin can find out after 5 minutes on wikipedia that Ron Paul doesn’t hold any animosity towards people simply because they happen to be Jewish, (in fact he has the portraits of a couple Jews that he admires hanging in his office) and that his principles are completely incompatible with collectivism in general – nevermind collectivism based on something so banal and superficial as skin color.

    Furthermore his whole political outlook is in direct contradiction with the Nazi ethos.

    Libertarianism simply doesn’t jive with National Socialism at all, they’re in complete opposition to one another on a fundamental level. One is based on the axiom of non-aggression, the other seeks to justify aggression through a distorted form of altruism. One preaches the strengths of the individual over the collective, the other does the opposite. The list goes on and on.

    In fact, I was completely incredulous when I first heard about Nazi’s donating to Ron Paul. To me that makes about as much sense as Nazi’s donating to Kucinich. Even less so to an extent, because while Kucinich is a proponent of civil liberties, he’s also a bit of a socialist.

    So I paid a visit to Stormfront to find out just what the hell was going on. What I saw there were just a bunch of pissed off white kids who’ve bought into the bullshit identity politics espoused by the MSM and the governing elite, but have no where else to turn to (due to the fact that they’re white and non-jewish) for their exercise in mental masturbation.

    They’re the ones who support Ron Paul over at Stormfront. They’re no different than all the other fucked up little racial collectives that have sprouted up all over the place: except in this case it’s for people who have white skin instead of brown, or black, or yellow, or whatever. Sure it’s stupid; but monkey see, monkey do.

    Meanwhile the real Nazi’s over there, quite naturally oppose him due to his political views regarding individuality and the powerful influence that the teachings of Jews like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard have had on the formation of Ron Paul’s political viewpoints.

    Heh, actually it looks like Ron Paul’s movement is causing a bit of a schism on stormfront. It’s really quite hilarious.

    Anyway, to bring this rant to a close: this non-scandal has no hope in hell of discrediting Ron Paul. In fact, should it actually become an issue outside of a couple blogs on the internet that nobody cares about, I’m positive that it will have the same effect on Ron Paul’s campaign as when Rudy lambasted him for quite correctly pointing out that 9/11 was caused by blowback to America’s foreign policy.

    Ron Paul’s campaign will become even stronger as it becomes obvious what a bunch of fucking retards his detractors are for even trying to make an issue out of it. The worst thing Ron Paul could do with this non-issue is try to make amends, because that would suggest that he’s actually done something wrong.

    The only people capable of buying into this desperate attempt at guilt-by-association are the same people who buy into all the other lies and propaganda that have brought America to it’s knees. And they’re too fucking stupid to recognize a good thing when they see it anyway, and would therefore not have supported Ron Paul’s quest to free them from their shackles in the first place.

    Cheers,

    Friedrich Hockemeyer.

    Comment by fred — November 14, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
  71. It is VERY telling when I stop and just think about how many times I have heard about this.

    Especially considering HOW LITTLE we hear about the following:

    - Paul’s OTHER donations…namely the fact that he gets more money from active and retired military than ALL OTHER CANDIDATES- despite his “crazy” foreign policy views.

    - Hillary Clinton taking over $850,000 from a known embezzler and 15-year federal fugitive who is as we speak wearing orange pajamas….thats Hsu Im talking about here- I wont even go into the Peter Paul debacle.

    - Hillary Clinton throwing her colleague and buddy Senator Robert Byrd (a grand cyclops KLANSMAN…as in, didnt get donations from them…he IS ONE) a birthday party IN THE HOME OF FREDRICK DOUGLASS just two years ago.

    - Rudy Giuliani’s association with Bernard Kerik…given that Kerik was indicted on federal corruption charges, that Newscorp and FoxNews are currently facing a $100 MILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT for telling reporters and executives to lie about Kerik’s association with Giuliani, and Kerik’s alleged mob-ties.

    Now…considering that Ron Paul is a candidate who has struggled for campaign coverage despite winning so many straw polls, opinion polls, post-debate polls, raising the most money from service men and women than any other candidate in the race, raising competetive monies despite refusing special interest money, and breaking fundraising records left and right on the internet with independent citizen efforts HE DIDNT EVEN HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH….it seems very odd that some “journalists” are so eager to latch on to a non-story like “racist over at stormfront sent Paul $500!”

    In fact…it sounds beyond odd. It sounds like the media favors simply sitting back and desperately waiting for ANY dirt (however reaching and irrelevant) to throw at the Paul campaign- while ignoring not only the positive stories surrounding his unique campaign, but also the downright deplorable and literally ILLEGAL ones surrounding the media-anointed “frontrunners.”

    Im a black American who will be voting for Ron Paul who is unquestionably the most honest candidate in the race. Your and others’ fascination with this non-issue is frankly disgusting.

    Comment by Julian — November 14, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
  72. omfg everyone’s a nazi !!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by oilnwater — November 15, 2007 @ 5:10 am
  73. Here we are again… Stop playing the Jewish trump card and move on!!!

    Comment by Mike — November 15, 2007 @ 6:39 am
  74. Hay you guys stormfront only soupports Ron paul cause of his free speech and anti jew views.Stormfront has raised plenty of money to help Ron paul not cause they like him that much.But they are looking for a person with freedom of speech and is looking to end the jew controll media of america.Call them a fringe group all you want but they probaly have donated more money then most.And there is nothing wrong with white proud people looking to vote for a canidate that fits their priorty.The blacks vote on politicians that fit their priorty like obama or sharpton.They have done nothing illigal or any thing wrong and have the right to give money to who ever they want.

    Comment by Hay — November 15, 2007 @ 8:32 am
  75. ^^^ and obviously this post was a plant. so this is how ron paul is going to go out, eh? as the patsy for a fake nazi story, yay.

    Comment by oilnwater — November 15, 2007 @ 8:44 am
  76. YOU HEARD IT AT LIBERTY PAPERS FIRST, FOLKS! TELL EVERYONE YOU HEARD IT HERE!

    I am so glad we have the Liberty Papers as a forum to espouse our totally legitimate views!

    Everyone knows Ron Paul is a Nazi sympathizer. He also eats puppies and kicks babies.

    -Ron Paul hates America!

    -He dodged the draft by becomming a Rhodes Scholar!

    -Then he joined the Texas Air National Guard but never went to work!

    -He married Bill Clinton and ran for New York Senate in 2000, but then he voted for the Iraq War!

    -He directed traffic on 9/11 and grandstand-ed in front of cameras while the firefighters died!

    -He voted for the funding for the war but then he voted against it, but then he voted for it again!

    -He molests children!

    -He molests priests!

    -He molests orca whales!

    -He crucified Christ!

    -He declared war on Christmas!

    -He was caught making a porno with Paris Hilton!

    -He shaved his head bald and got his children taken away. He made a brief comeback in 2007, but everyone at the MTV awards said he looked
    stiff and tired!

    -Ron Paul cracked the liberty bell and tried to fill it with spackle!

    -He started the wildfires in California by manipultaing the energy market and defrauding thousands of stockholders.

    -He was responsible for the space shuttle Challenger disaster!

    -Oh my God, the LIBERTY PAPERS are great!

    -He returned shoes to Nordstroms after wearing them for 6 months which is a clear abuse of their liberal return policy!

    -LIBERTY PAPERS EVERYONE! LIBERTY PAPERS! TELL PEOPLE WHERE YOU HEARD IT!

    Comment by Soupy McSandwich — November 15, 2007 @ 10:49 am
  77. Soupy, that’s incredible. I didn’t know Ron Paul was responsible for all that! I guess I’ll have to pull the lever for Tancredo now, especially after that kick-ass new ad.

    Comment by Matt — November 15, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
  78. Re: Ron Paul & Stormfront

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Comment by Brian T. Traylor — November 15, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
  79. anyone whos not a drooling idiot can see that ron paul isn’t a neo-nazi, however they can only see this if it gets reported completly in the msm, otherwise…

    Comment by plubius_reborn — November 15, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
  80. I see the GOP has now sicced the ADL on Ron Paul. He should tell where that hate-monger organization where to go !

    Comment by GeneG — November 15, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
  81. Ok people Ron paul gets donations from stormfront so stormfront is not neo-nazi.They are white pride not nazi like naccp for blacks.There is nothing wrong with people on that website wanting to donate money to ron paul.People recive money from the naccp so whats wrong with donations comming from stormfront.You people really know nothing of stormfront it is a white pride group not a white suppremist.Go visit the site some of you sound so folish to fall into this saying its a neo-nazi group.No its not its a white pride blog thats it nothing wrong with it.Unless you know what they are don’t comment bad about paul or stormfront.

    Comment by Hey — November 15, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
  82. Yes, Great post! That Ron Paul Nazi sympathizer has got to go. What in the hell does he think he is doing? The wars MUST go on forever. Wars are the health of the state and good for the economy. Who cares that US occupations cost tax payers a trillion dollars a year. Americans are just going to have to make sacrifices and give up all of their rights if they are to remain free. We can NEVER sleep as long as there is even one islamofacist diaperhead still alive. Kill’em all! Let’s turn the entire middle east into nothing but a sheet of glass. Get this, Paul actually wants to shrink the size of government. Ha ha ha! The bigger the better I say. Ron Paul is so out of touch with reality. Imagine, he wants to abolish the Fed to bring back sound money. A greatly devalued dollar makes products cheaper here at home, only imports will cost more. So what if all of the USA’s manufacturing has all been exported overseas. There are still have lots of domestic products they can still buy, right? Electing Ron Paul is just a bad idea all the way around. I mean, for crying out loud, he is not even a CFR member. Only CFR member are allowed do be US presidents (don’t you idiots know anything?). So vote for any other candidate EXCEPT Ron Paul, our new president MUST have the right credentials. Get this, Ron Paul is only supported by the little people (useless eaters) and won’t even take contributions from special interests. One cannot win the presidency with chump change. If Ron Paul ever hopes to get elected he had better open up the coffers to the industrialized military complex and special interest groups to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. Lastly, we must do whatever we have to do to keep this constitutional nut-job from getting any more popular than he is. As our hero G.W. Bush has said, “Stop throwing the constitution in my face, it’s nothing but a goddamn piece of paper.” Now, we all know that we cannot smear Ron Paul himself (too clean for that), so let’s go after his supporters and paint them all as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy theorists. Again, congratulations on the great Ron Paul smear job. Keep up the wonderful work. If we continue to all work hard together, we can stop freedom, liberty and prosperity dead in its tracks. Death to the USA! Up with the NWO!

    Comment by Abdul — November 23, 2007 @ 10:16 am
  83. “discredited conspiracists”

    Name one of these people who were discredited? this is just a lie you are telling the public

    Comment by Andrew — November 29, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
  84. LOOOOOOOOOOOL, it looks like everyone’s a Nazi now-a-days.

    The Republicans are Nazis, the Democrats are Nazis, Feminists are Nazis, Bush is a Nazi, Rudy JulieAnnie is a cross-dressing Nazi, Hillary (lol Hitlary) is a Nazi, Backwards muslim extremists living in caves are Nazis and people who eat meat are Nazis.

    Hell, even I’ve been called a Nazi from time to time, just because my parents are German immigrants.

    And now Ron Paul is a Nazi as well.

    Nevermind that Ron Paul is a libertarian and therefore opposed to collectivism in all it’s forms, whose greatest heros are a couple jews that fled the holocaust. Jews that inspired him to get into politics in the first place, jews that played an important part in starting the whole damn libertarian movement he spent his whole political career fighting for.

    It’s getting to the point where I don’t even know what the fuck a nazi is actually supposed to be anymore.

    Next thing you know some jackass with a blog or TV/Radio Show is gonna try and tell me that Ludwig Von Mises and Anne Rand were Nazis.

    Meanwhile every lunatic with a chip on their shoulder is popping out of the woodwork to exploit 6 million dead jews to further their idealogical and political agendas.

    I bet those Jews would have felt a lot better about the whole thing if they could only have known that their persecution and death – AT THE HANDS OF A TOTALITARIAN (NOT LIBERTARIAN) GOVERNMENT I MIGHT ADD – would be used 60 years later to sling muck in a US presidential campaign.

    As a Libertarian, I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. That said, I think it would be awesome if we could enact a new law that required anyone who spuriously accused others of being Nazis to be immediately given a Zyklon B shower and then thrown into a fucking oven.

    Whose with me?

    In the meantime, I have no worries about an alleged “Nazi” donating money to Ron Paul. Only a total crank desperate for attention would even raise the issue, because no serious journalist with a reputation to protect would try and make a story out of it considering Ron Paul’s background.

    Comment by Andrew — November 29, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
  85. It is absolutely ridiculous to call someone a nazi because a nazi supports them. I’m sure there is a BIG list of people supported every candidate for every office that they would not want to be associated with.

    There sure were a lot of suggestions of jewish groups that the money could be given to. Why is is bad for him to have the money, but ok for them to have it? “Ooh that’s dirty money. Give it to us.”

    Ignore all of this crap. It’s all part of the usual bag of tricks for discrediting someone that doesn’t seem to have any skeletons in their closet. I’m so past sick of this sh*t.

    Comment by Pegg Mumford — November 30, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
  86. Pegg,

    You’re right about that. As long as the money’s not stolen (such as by criminal activity or taxation) or illegally obtained or donated there’s nothing wrong with a candidate accepting it, regardless of who donated. And as long as the candidate’s being honest about how he intends to vote, the donor has no relevance at all to the candidate. The people who say otherwise are merely engaging in self-righteous hypocrisy and arguing against free speech and they shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than the crackpots who whine about too much T & A on the television. If you base your value judgments of a candidate on who appears on his donor list, you should be laughed out of any serious political discussion immediately.

    Comment by UCrawford — November 30, 2007 @ 1:19 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