Posted on 10/11/2007 1:43:20 PM PDT by mnehrling
In yesterday’s thread discussing the Republican debate on Tuesday, several people, including me, commented on the seemingly tacit acceptance of support from Neo-Nazis and white supremacists by Dr. Ron Paul.
First, let me say this: we are NOT claiming that Ron Paul is a racist or a Neo-Nazi.
We do think it is very strange that so many of these groups are rallying around Dr. Paul.
That said, the simple fact is that the white nationalist website Stormfront.org features Ron Paul’s campaign banner prominently on their front page–thus providing a direct link from the leading White Supremacist site on the web to Dr. Paul’s on-line donation form.
Still, as LGF and others have noticed… The Nazis over at Stormfront are urging all skinheads to spam the online polls in favor of Ron Paul. Here’s a youtube audio of Stormfront Radio’s commercial for Ron Paul. Paul is so popular with these scumbags that even the presidential candidate of the American Nazi Party is complaining that Paul is stealing his support base! Ron Paul is the favored candidate of David Duke.
So what is it about Dr. Paul that has Neo-Nazis and white supremacists flocking to his campaign?
And if YOU were running for President and suddenly found that all sorts of racist nut-jobs were jumping on your bandwagon, wouldn’t this fact make you stop for a minute and go “Huh, I wonder what is going on here? Why do all these racist loony bigots mistakenly think I’m their man? And what am I going to do about it to make sure they and everyone else are disabused of this notion?”
We asked numerous times yesterday for a response from the Ron Paul supporters who descend upon LST at the mere mention of their hero’s name. Not a single person could provide evidence that Dr. Paul has publicly repudiated the support or racists and Neo-Nazis. Not one!
One person compared it to the Klan’s “support” of Ronald Reagan in 1980, but when presented with evidence that Reagan quickly, publicly and absolutely disavowed such support, he had nothing more to say.
I have searched for over a week now trying to find a similar public statement from Ron Paul, and come up with nothing.
We understand that Dr. Paul cannot be held responsible for every knuckle-headed Nazi who decides to put a donation link to his campaign on their racist website.
But we do, however, think it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to speak out officially and demand the Nazis and all other racist groups remove these links, and insist unambiguously that he doesn’t want the support, either financial or in the form of votes, of any white supremacist.
If the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul with do this we will gladly publish his statement here.
ping
However, I guarantee that Ron Paul will continue to gladly accept their money and will say and do absolutely nothing that might endanger his support from these groups.
That's certainly been his modus operandi so far.
Where is the repudiation of Truther and Neo Nazi propaganda?
His apparent lack of disawowing these kooks implys is acceptance of their support. There is no other way to look at it.
'Nuff said.
I agree with him.
Why does he hook up with the likes of these people, the only candidate to sign their pledge, represented by leftie groups like:
Liberty Coalition Partners include [snip]:
Muslim Public Affairs Council
MoveOn.org Political Action
People for the American Way
National Iranian American Council
VelvetRevolution.us
Democrats.com
Common Cause
Amnesty International
http://www.libertycoalition.net/
AFA will also offer a Presidential Pledge to all 2008 hopefuls. By signing the pledge, candidates commit themselves to implement the ten point plan if elected. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) attended the kick-off event and became the first candidate to sign the American Freedom Agenda Pledge.
http://www.libertycoalition.net/conservatives-launch-effort-to-rollback-presidential-abuse-of-power
On the other hand...these attempts to paint Paul as some sort of closet big spender because of the earmarks strikes me as disingenuous. Those attacks are transparently false
Same with these attempts to link him to a white supremacists. These type of guilt-by-association attacks are better left to the comptemtible leftists
Go look at the reasons Stormfront cites for supporting Paul....from the site:
On issues particularly important to White Nationalists or the Pro-White in general, of all the mainstream candidates:
* Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of "Hate Crime" Laws.
* Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Amnesty and "open border" movements.
Ron Paul wants to end birth-right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
* Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of welfare programs that among other things, would redistribute the income of hard-working White families into the hands of lazy non-Whites.
* Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Globalism and all attempts to create a North American Union.
* Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of military support and foreign aid to countries like Israel.
* Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto any legislation to that effect.
Now...other than the point about aid to Israel...I would venture to say that most Freepers support every one of these points. And, on the question of foreign aid...Ron Paul votes against all foreign aid as unconstitutional...and on that point, he is correct. It should also be noted that Stormfront says of Paul:
Ron Paul is NOT a White Nationalist. His Libertarian policies will also conflict with National Socialism, something that a good number of Stormfront members support. However, he is the least toxic candidate by leaps and bounds.
So...lets stop these unfair types of attacks...its beneath conservatives
See post 9. He's already got MoveOn.org
Very nice!
Beneath Conservatives?
That is total BS
Was Ron Paul ever a Conservative? Is he one now?
If not, then your premise and points are a waste of everyone's time.
Ron Paul is fatally flawed because of his "Blame America" and "surrender now" foreign suicidal views.
I agree, we should not fault him for who is supporting him, he should be viciously denounced continually on this forum.
-----------------
Mr. Nathaniel J. Friedman
August 23, 1980 Dear Mr. Friedman:
Just a line to thank you very much for your letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times. It was kind and generous of you to do this, and I am most grateful.
It wasn’t until I left the South and was in New York that I learned the Klan had endorsed me. I immediately made it plain in a press conference that I do not want such an endorsement and that I repudiate it and everything the Klan stands for. I guess Mr. Young didn’t pay much attention to that.
Again, my heartfelt thanks.
Best regards,
Ron-----------------
April 30, 1984
Dear Morris:
While in China, I have been distressed to learn that some individuals back home have questioned whether my views on the Ku Klux Klan have somehow changed since 1980. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In 1980, I said that I have no tolerance for what the Klan represents, and would have nothing to do with any groups of that type. If anything, my feelings on this subject have only grown stronger. The politics of racial hatred and religious bigotry practiced by the Klan and others have no place in this country, and are destructive of the values for which America has always stood. Those of us in public life can only resent the use of our names by those who seek political recognition for the repugnant doctrines of hate they espouse.
I firmly believe that there is no room for partisanship on this question. Democrats and Republicans alike must be resolute in disassociating ourselves from any group or individual whose political philosophy consists only of racial or religious intolerance, whose arguments are supported only by intimidation or threats of violence.
We must, and will, continue our unified rejection of such elements of hate in our political life, for while there are many issues which divide us, it is fundamental principles such as this which will always draw us together.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan[The Honorable Morris B. Abram, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20425]
------------------
Marc Emery agrees his campaign-organizing effort for some 2008 U.S. presidential candidates is a bit unorthodox. He's Canadian, his political base of operations is the B.C. Marijuana Party in Vancouver, and he can be arrested if he sets foot into America.
Still, "We have a saying up here: 'American politics is far too important to leave to the Americans,'" says Emery, 49, who is trying to raise cross-border support for dark-horse White House candidates. He likes liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich well enough, but prefers Republican Ron Paul, a longtime libertarian who, like Emery, opposes the U.S. war on drugs.
Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, says the fledgling campaign welcomes all support. But Emery shouldn't necessarily expect amnesty from a Paul administration. "You would see a cooling of the federal war on drugs [under Paul]," Benton says. "But Ron believes in the rule of law, and I don't think this guy should look to Ron for him getting off scot-free."
If the campaign openly accepts the support of indicted drug dealers, white supremecists on board should surprise no one.
“First, let me say this: we are NOT claiming that Ron Paul is a racist or a Neo-Nazi.”
No, this jerk’s just using his name in the same sentences with them until he fabricates a connection.
Ron Paul wants to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. He wants to leave a job unfinished, thereby rendering our troops' hard-won accomplishments and deep sacrifices all for naught.
Sorry, but that one's a BIGGIE and not a conservative stance from where I sit.
He could cut and paste post 14. But he won't, he's the authentic Ronald Reagan you know.
Brand-new FReeper/Paulenoid slipping in today?
Welcome to Free Republic.
Paul was Reagan’s right hand man and bes t secret pal dontcha know. Certainly he knows about Reagan’s letters about these groups...
He is just waiting to write a “Reagan Level” response I bet...
Also love the last part. See a “cooling” on the war on drugs. Yeah that’s what we need, more crack on the streets...
Hum....
The conservatives I’m referring to are Freepers...its beneath a conservative Freeper to try to paint a guy as a white supremacist because he has support from a white supremacist
The irony is that you may remember that Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, organized rallies for George Bush in Florida during the contest over the 2000 election...I remember hearing all the Gore leftists trying to make the case that this proved that Bush probably sympathized with their cause...it was contemptible then...and so are articles like these
The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty
--Ron Paul
Retread?
But...
Now I have an even bigger issue.
If that is his stance I would expect a definitive and swift disavowal of all such groups who have expressed support of his candidacy.
I see none.
Nice words though...
But...
Now I have an even bigger issue.
If that is his stance I would expect a definitive and swift disavowal of all such groups who have expressed support of his candidacy.
I see none.
Nice words though...
The article's author specifically states that Paul is not being accused of being a white supremacist.
The article is just exploring why Paul seems to attract people like this and the Truthers and MoveOn.org, etc.
maybe...
I think the poster is “protesting too much”...
See my point above -- a favorite propaganda technique is to repeat "Mr. X claims that he's not a racist" enough times until the reader comes away with only the words "Mr. X" and "racist." This trick is just as disreputable here as when similar voodoo is done to Rush. No doubt a handful of conservatives have a problem with Ron Paul -- maybe an actual constitutionalist makes them feel guilty.
You're new here. I know a litte about how the media operates. I have refuted them tirelessly on here over the last few years as they've spewed their lies, promoting their anti-war propaganda.
I have been able to see up close what the truth is and what the media reports in its stead.
No doubt a handful of conservatives have a problem with Ron Paul -- maybe an actual constitutionalist makes them feel guilty.
Oh, good grief. A "handful?" We "feel guilty?"
"Most conservatives," including the owner and moderators of this forum support the war on terror, support our troops and find the idea of cutting and running cowardly and reprehensible.
Where do you Paulies get this stuff? And why are more of you coming on here when it's been made clear that the anti-war stuff isn't welcome?
Both inexpertly joined clauses in that sentence merit nothing more than a simple, emphatic "bullsh!t." Ron Paul's own pinheaded apologia choir have already openly confessed that the greater portion of his grossly exaggerated "support" consists of (their own words) "Democrats and anti-war Libertarians."
The Paulestinians know -- absolutely and inarguably know, in SPITE of all their silly, spluttered denials to the contrary, both here and elsewhere -- that there's no surging "groundswell" of support for Prawn Paul amongst the Republican rank and file, as they've been monotonously braying. If they did actually have concrete, verifiable support within the voting Republican base to any appreciable extent, they wouldn't NEED to screech and snivel and shriek over the "unfairness" of (for instance) Democrats and "libertarian" leftists not being allowed to openly game the Republican primaries in the first place. (*GASP* -- !!!)
You haven't been here long enough to opine with even a toddler's credibility as to why, precisely, the concretely verifiable majority of voting conservatives on this forum (not to mention the nation, entire) "have a problem" with old Cut'N'Run. Peddle it someplace else, muffin.
You might consider not sniping at other people's grammar, muffin. So I can assume that you definitely do not want the thousands of libertarian-leaning Republicans voting for any of your candidates in '08 (why else would you so compulsively trash talk them)?
Looks like there's a new campaign motto -- "Vote Republican - Join the circular firing squad!"
On the other hand, I very well might, if they're all as stone illiterate as you appear to be, muffin. "Concretely verifiable majority" is (obviously) perfectly kosher, grammatically. Do try spluttering some intelligible sort of halting, ESL-schooled argument to the contrary, though, by all means. I always enjoy a little light cabaret with my breakfast.
So I can assume that you definitely do not want the thousands of libertarian-leaning Republicans voting for any of your candidates in '08
Evidently, simple reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, either. (Tsk, tsk.) There's a yawning and cavernous difference between "Democrats and anti-war Libertarians" (what I plainly said) and "libertarian-leaning republicans" (what you ineptly withdrew from the least fragrant portion of your nether regions). I haven't giggled at legerdemain that painfully maladroit and obvious since the last time Stephen Hawking attempted a card trick.
Far cleverer and more able trolls have attempted to hump my leg over the years, tot. Dismissed.
PS, defecating on libertarians, and then trying to parse your comment to suggest that you're only insulting Democratic libertarians, is the sort of sophistry that didn't work for Bill Clinton, and will not work for you (and will help lose elections for Republicans).
Now if you wish, I can respond to you with far better feline, thesaurus-fueled calumny than your own... or we can stick with ideas. I prefer the latter.
PS, defecating on libertarians, and then trying to parse your comment to suggest that you're only insulting Democratic libertarians, is the sort of sophistry that didn't work for Bill Clinton, and will not work for you (and will help lose elections for Republicans).
Either your congenitally dishonest, or else simply a "special needs" adult. "Democrats and anti-war Libertarians" was the damning self-describing formulation parsed by Paulestinians themselves; I'm merely taking them at their own word, on this one. You needn't remind me that taking the statements of any given Paulestinian at face value is, statistically speaking, a mug's game -- their assorted huffings and twitterings on this very site have already rendered that crystalline.
Now if you wish, I can respond to you with far better feline, thesaurus-fueled calumny than your own...
Awww. It thinks flopping about the house in a pair of Daddy's pants actually makes it a credible Daddy.
That's just so darned adorable. Really.
or we can stick with ideas. I prefer the latter.
Paulestinians don't "do" ideas. That's what makes them Paulestinians in the first place.
“your” = you’re.
My country is engaged in a fight for her life, even though nuts like Ron Paul, don’t see it. It is a fight that will take years, even decades, or centuries to win or lose. It is against an enemy who uses lies and violence as means to an end. The conversion of the USA to an Islamic Republic under Sharia Law. Fools like Ron and the Democrats are too blind to see it.
Oops. Meant to include Goodness in my last post
I congratulate you on your sanity. ;)
And, as is apparent from your Rain-Man-with-a-thesaurus posts, neither do those suffering from RPDS (Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome).
The latter is a painful, debilitating condition suffered by "conservatives" who encounter a Republican who supports small, less intrusive government, lower taxes, a foreign policy based on traditional conservative assessments and responses to threats, and is pro-life. Said "conservatives," rather than recognizing and returning to their core values, respond by hysterically attacking said candidate and his supporters.
(BTW, belittling your opponents with erudite contempt that borders on incoherence makes you seem impotent rather than literate. Now go back to watching Fraser reruns and buzz off).
And, as is apparent from your Rain-Man-with-a-thesaurus posts, neither do those suffering from RPDS (Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome).
The latter is a painful, debilitating condition suffered by "conservatives" who encounter a Republican who supports small, less intrusive government, lower taxes, a foreign policy based on traditional conservative assessments and responses to threats, and is pro-life. Said "conservatives," rather than recognizing and returning to their core values, respond by hysterically attacking said candidate and his supporters.
(BTW, belittling your opponents with erudite contempt that borders on incoherence makes you seem impotent rather than literate. Now go back to watching Fraser reruns and buzz off).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.