- ‹ previous
- 4240 of 8806
- next ›
Ron Paul Refuses to Divest of Donations from Neo-Nazis
When I read this very well-documented story in the Lone Star Times about the $500 donation to Ron Paul from well-known white supremacist Don Black, I didn't really blame Paul for taking the money. After all, it's hard to screen out every kook in advance. I assumed Paul would immediately return the money (or donate it to a group like the Holocaust Museum), prevent a link on Black's Neo-Nazi website, Stormfront, from connecting to the campaign's donation page, and announce these moves on the official Ron Paul website. I assumed wrong.
Five days after the Lone Star Times story appeared, Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told the paper he was still unsure whether the campaign would return Black's money. "At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black's contribution," he said, "but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days." Would the campaign at least block fundraising links from Stormfront's IP address? Again, Benton said, he'd have to bring up the idea with the campaign director.
Since then, more than two weeks have passed without an update from the Paul campaign, so I sent Benton and email today asking what the campaign manager had decided. Would Paul be returning Black's money and blocking further donations from Stormfront? A few minutes later he wrote back, and this is what he said:
(Continue reading after the jump)
Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and the protection of inalienable individual rights for every American. All of our campaigns energy is dedicated to spreading the message of liberty and limited government, and we do not spend time screening donors or blocking websites. We don't know who Don Black is, and pay him no attention. If a small number individuals who hold racist beliefs want to waste their money by giving to Dr. Paul, a man who stands firmly against their small minded ideologies, then the campaign will simply use those funds to protect freedom, peace and civil liberties across our Nation.
Frankly, I find the glibness of this response appalling, and I could not disagree more with its reasoning. Accepting Black's dirty money creates an implied obligation to these nut jobs and their priorities, which, even if rejected by Paul, is hard to deny. Are we to simply take Paul's word that these people aren't buying anything? How are we to know that Paul doesn't share their motives? Does Paul support tighter border controls because he fears a drain on social services, or because he doesn't like brown people? Now it's hard to know. I say this reluctantly, as someone who has a great deal of respect for Paul's courageous stands on issues such as the war in Iraq: I no longer believe that Paul is a man of principle. There is simply never any principle to taking cash tainted with the blood of Auschwitz and Jim Crow.
More thoughts: In the comments Paulites have echoed Benton's assertion that money from racists is better spent on the Paul campaign than on the active promotion of racism. This is true, but it doesn't make it right to accept the money. The fact remains that some people will view its acceptance as a legitimization of the racists who donated it, no matter what Paul says to the contrary. Racism in America has been a duplicitous endeavor. Why do you think members of the KKK wore masks? Actions speak louder than words here, and if Paul really cared about rebuking the Neo-Nazis, he would do so in the most direct way possible, which is to donate their money to a group that counters them, such as the Anti-Defamation League. (More on Paul and racism here, here, and here).
Ultimately, the Paulites might be correct that this incident isn't worth taking seriously. The Neo-Nazis are not a great threat to American society, and in the end, neither is Paul. He has made a buffoonish, politically tone deaf move, and it confirms, despite his great strides in recent months, that he is still a fringe candidate with no hope of winning the presidency. There's simply no way America will elect a candidate who knowingly takes money from Neo-Nazis.
Update: Because of this post, my membership in Ron Paul's San Francisco Meetup group has been revoked. This morning Stephanie Burns, who administers the group, wrote to me in an email: "I am removing you from our Meetup Group as you certainly aren't a Ron Paul supporter. I suggest you spend your time looking at bigger issues than a stupid $500 donation from someone the campaign did not even know. . . .Why don't you focus your efforts on the Neo nazis in power, instead of some stupid nut job who happens to support a candidate (every candidate has them, Josh, check it out)."
Does this mean that a perquisite of membership is the San Francisco Ron Paul Meetup group is a belief that it is morally fine to accept donations from Neo-Nazi groups? Will others who question this policy also be booted? It certainly seems strange that a campaign that portrays itself as a big tent, where even Neo-Nazis are welcome, is simultaneously so intolerant of dissent.
More on that dissent: Comments to this post have evolved into complaints that Paul is unfairly being singled out. Paulites contend that kooks donate to all of the candidates and ask why I'm only pointing this out in Paul's case. To that I say, show me a proven example of a well-known Neo-Nazi group (or its leader) donating money to another well-known presidential candidate, or posting fundraising ads for the candidate on their web page. I will then contact that candidate and ask if they will reject the money. If they will not, I will blog about it. This is exactly the scenario with Paul. A second recurring critique is the the notion I have some agenda to discredit Paul, which is somehow proven by the fact that I've researched this issue. In reality, researching and writing this blog post took me about an hour. Meanwhile, I have spent months researching the campaign for forthcoming stories, as many here in San Francisco know. It's hard to see how that constitutes an anti-Paul agenda. IMHO, Paul supporters should be doing some soul-searching right now. See, for example, the anti-semitic comments below by "No Mo Jooz." Why has nobody repudiated this guy?
"I compare them to people like Gandhi."
? U.S. Rep. RON PAUL (R-Texas) in a televised June 22 interview with a tax-protest website discussing the case of two armed tax evaders, sentenced to five years in prison, who have threatened violence against law enforcement authorities during a continuing standoff
"Does this mean that a perquisite of membership is the San Francisco Ron Paul Meetup group is a belief that it is morally fine to accept donations from Neo-Nazi groups? Will others who question this policy also be booted?"
That is a fairly absurd question/assumption, and I think you are wise enough to know that. The objective of the Ron Paul meetup is to organize and promote grassroots campaigning efforts, not to promote defamation of Ron Paul. I do not doubt that there are others in the group that would agree that the campaign should refuse the money. As you know, Paul supporters make up a pretty diverse group, and there are many of them that don't agree with him on every issue. Regardless of their views, so long as they choose to be a contributing member of grassroots campaigning efforts for Ron Paul, I imagine they will be welcome.
"Paulites contend that kooks donate to all of the candidates and ask why I'm only pointing this out in Paul's case. To that I say, show me a proven example of a well-known Neo-Nazi group (or its leader) donating money to another well-known presidential candidate, or posting fundraising ads for the candidate on their web page."
Why must it be limited a neo-nazi group? Is that the only ideology that is dangerous/distasteful? Someone mentioned the donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp that other candidates have accepted. Most reasonable people find that (neocon) group to be objectionable; additionally, they have a greater impact on our society and promote policies that have killed far more innocent people than American neo-nazi groups. It is pretty safe to assume that neo-nazis are not the only detestable group in America. Under this assumption, in fairness to those asking that you call out all candidates that accept "dirty" money, it is only fair to provide the Josh Harkinson/Mother Jones handbook of detestable ideologies to which you are referring.
Regardless, I believe this argument is irrelevant. As far as I know the only requirements to contribute to a political campaign are stated on each candidates online donation form, and none of those requirements rule out racists, fabricators of news, or any other custodian of detestable ideologies. The United States is a country that values (or at least used to value) liberty; Last time I checked personal and political views were welcome. FEC requirements to make a political campaign donation do not discriminate based on these views, and I don't know of any candidates that do any screening beyond the legislated eligibility requirements.
"A second recurring critique is the the notion I have some agenda to discredit Paul, which is somehow proven by the fact that I've researched this issue."
While you may have researched this specific issue, it doesn't seem as though you have researched, or perhaps just do not fully understand, the foundation of Dr. Paul's principles. I cannot speak for Dr. Paul, but I believe that he holds very similar beliefs to those of the founding fathers. They wanted this country to be a place where all people are free to practice religion as they choose, or to not practice any religion, and free to hold any personal/political/social views they choose. You cannot protect one individuals rights without protecting the rights of all individuals; therefore, I believe Ron Paul will defend the rights of the neo-nazis just as he would defend your rights. If you think that makes Dr. Paul a racist then you probably haven't read his views on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
Additionally, if he rejects the $500 contribution to which you refer, this would falsely imply that he will screening future contributors, and will reject contributions from anyone holding views in which he finds offensive. Ron Paul's stance pro-life stance is one that many of his supporters do not agree on, so I will use it as an example. Under your premise, since Dr. Paul believes abortion is murder, he should reject any contributions from those that believe otherwise. Correct? Or, since you are a supporter of a woman's right to an abortion (hypothetically, as I do not know your views on the matter), are contributions OK in this circumstance? Also, under your premise, what would make it OK for a respectable charity to accept this "blood money"? Both the charity and the campaign are not-for-profit groups, and both ? in their minds - have the goal of making a better America. If you still insist that he give the money to a charity then we would first have to determine, absolutely, that Dr. Paul's campaign does NOT have the goal of improving America, and then by the same terms choose a charitable organization that does. The only problem is that neither of these tasks are possible; not everyone believes that Dr. Paul is correct in all of his positions, and no matter which charitable organization you choose there will be some people that disagree with some of their philosophies or tactics.
"In reality, researching and writing this blog post took me about an hour. Meanwhile, I have spent months researching the campaign for forthcoming stories, as many here in San Francisco know. It's hard to see how that constitutes an anti-Paul agenda."
Maybe you should have researched a bit more, or given it a little more thought? ;) I don't think one can judge, or is judging, your stories that we haven't yet seen. But the level of objectivity in this blog entry, referring to those with whom you disagree to be buffoonish, is cause for suspicion..
"IMHO, Paul supporters should be doing some soul-searching right now. See, for example, the anti-semitic comments below by "No Mo Jooz." Why has nobody repudiated this guy?"
With regard to your recommended soul searching... I disagree with what you have said. I also vehemently disagree with neo-nazi ideologies, and all forms of collectivism for that matter. But I will personally fight to my death for your right to say whatever you'd like. By principle, I must also be willing to fight to my death to defend the same rights to the group of neo-nazis; if either of you lose your rights to say and believe what you would like, then I am only an election away from losing mine.
Ron Paul is the most honest, genuine, and principled presidential candidate I have ever seen. He is more committed to restoring and preserving individual rights than anyone else in Washington DC. Over the last 15 years or so, the US has been responsible for over a million deaths of INNOCENT Iraqis and the displacement of many more. He is the only candidate who will end this absurd violence, stop the US funding of military dictatorships, and end the immoral operations that lead to blowback and the tarnishing of our reputation. For these reasons, and many more, I will continue to support Ron Paul's candidacy.
As for repudiating the statements from 'No Mo Jooz': first of all, the comment doesn't even warrant acknowledgment. Secondly, if we all spent time responding to nonsensical blog comments we wouldn't have time for anything else.
Finally, wrt, the article from Paul's 1992 newsletter, I found out about that several months ago and found it quite saddening. My initial reaction to Paul's denial in writing the article was probably not different from yours. However, the more I think about it, the more I believe him that he did not write the article. Like the others around him have said - in politics and otherwise - it is very uncharacteristic of Dr. Paul to say the things that were printed in the article. In his 20+ year career in politics he hasn't said anything that would cause me to believe he is lying, and has firmly positioned himself on his principles, which reject racism and collectivism. Ghostwriters are not uncommon, so it is not inconceivable that Paul did not write the article, though he certainly should have been more careful in selecting the writer and screening the article(s). In my research I found a statement from Paul on the issue in which he took full responsibility for the incident. He has apologized repeatedly for the error, and has been paying for it for some time now. Regardless, the further his campaign gets, the more challenging it will become for them to overcome this regrettable incident.
"I compare them to people like Gandhi."
? U.S. Rep. RON PAUL (R-Texas) in a televised June 22 interview with a tax-protest website discussing the case of two armed tax evaders, sentenced to five years in prison, who have threatened violence against law enforcement authorities during a continuing standoff
"Does this mean that a perquisite of membership is the San Francisco Ron Paul Meetup group is a belief that it is morally fine to accept donations from Neo-Nazi groups? Will others who question this policy also be booted?"
That is a fairly absurd question/assumption, and I think you are wise enough to know that. The objective of the Ron Paul meetup is to organize and promote grassroots campaigning efforts, not to promote defamation of Ron Paul. I do not doubt that there are others in the group that would agree that the campaign should refuse the money. As you know, Paul supporters make up a pretty diverse group, and there are many of them that don't agree with him on every issue. Regardless of their views, so long as they choose to be a contributing member of grassroots campaigning efforts for Ron Paul, I imagine they will be welcome.
"Paulites contend that kooks donate to all of the candidates and ask why I'm only pointing this out in Paul's case. To that I say, show me a proven example of a well-known Neo-Nazi group (or its leader) donating money to another well-known presidential candidate, or posting fundraising ads for the candidate on their web page."
Why must it be limited a neo-nazi group? Is that the only ideology that is dangerous/distasteful? Someone mentioned the donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp that other candidates have accepted. Most reasonable people find that (neocon) group to be objectionable; additionally, they have a greater impact on our society and promote policies that have killed far more innocent people than American neo-nazi groups. It is pretty safe to assume that neo-nazis are not the only detestable group in America. Under this assumption, in fairness to those asking that you call out all candidates that accept "dirty" money, it is only fair to provide the Josh Harkinson/Mother Jones handbook of detestable ideologies to which you are referring.
Regardless, I believe this argument is irrelevant. As far as I know the only requirements to contribute to a political campaign are stated on each candidates online donation form, and none of those requirements rule out racists, fabricators of news, or any other custodian of detestable ideologies. The United States is a country that values (or at least used to value) liberty; Last time I checked personal and political views were welcome. FEC requirements to make a political campaign donation do not discriminate based on these views, and I don't know of any candidates that do any screening beyond the legislated eligibility requirements.
"A second recurring critique is the the notion I have some agenda to discredit Paul, which is somehow proven by the fact that I've researched this issue."
While you may have researched this specific issue, it doesn't seem as though you have researched, or perhaps just do not fully understand, the foundation of Dr. Paul's principles. I cannot speak for Dr. Paul, but I believe that he holds very similar beliefs to those of the founding fathers. They wanted this country to be a place where all people are free to practice religion as they choose, or to not practice any religion, and free to hold any personal/political/social views they choose. You cannot protect one individuals rights without protecting the rights of all individuals; therefore, I believe Ron Paul will defend the rights of the neo-nazis just as he would defend your rights. If you think that makes Dr. Paul a racist then you probably haven't read his views on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
Additionally, if he rejects the $500 contribution to which you refer, this would falsely imply that he will screening future contributors, and will reject contributions from anyone holding views in which he finds offensive. Ron Paul's stance pro-life stance is one that many of his supporters do not agree on, so I will use it as an example. Under your premise, since Dr. Paul believes abortion is murder, he should reject any contributions from those that believe otherwise. Correct? Or, since you are a supporter of a woman's right to an abortion (hypothetically, as I do not know your views on the matter), are contributions OK in this circumstance? Also, under your premise, what would make it OK for a respectable charity to accept this "blood money"? Both the charity and the campaign are not-for-profit groups, and both ? in their minds - have the goal of making a better America. If you still insist that he give the money to a charity then we would first have to determine, absolutely, that Dr. Paul's campaign does NOT have the goal of improving America, and then by the same terms choose a charitable organization that does. The only problem is that neither of these tasks are possible; not everyone believes that Dr. Paul is correct in all of his positions, and no matter which charitable organization you choose there will be some people that disagree with some of their philosophies or tactics.
"In reality, researching and writing this blog post took me about an hour. Meanwhile, I have spent months researching the campaign for forthcoming stories, as many here in San Francisco know. It's hard to see how that constitutes an anti-Paul agenda."
Maybe you should have researched a bit more, or given it a little more thought? ;) I don't think one can judge, or is judging, your stories that we haven't yet seen. But the level of objectivity in this blog entry, referring to those with whom you disagree to be buffoonish, is cause for suspicion..
"IMHO, Paul supporters should be doing some soul-searching right now. See, for example, the anti-semitic comments below by "No Mo Jooz." Why has nobody repudiated this guy?"
With regard to your recommended soul searching... I disagree with what you have said. I also vehemently disagree with neo-nazi ideologies, and all forms of collectivism for that matter. But I will personally fight to my death for your right to say whatever you'd like. By principle, I must also be willing to fight to my death to defend the same rights to the group of neo-nazis; if either of you lose your rights to say and believe what you would like, then I am only an election away from losing mine.
Ron Paul is the most honest, genuine, and principled presidential candidate I have ever seen. He is more committed to restoring and preserving individual rights than anyone else in Washington DC. Over the last 15 years or so, the US has been responsible for over a million deaths of INNOCENT Iraqis and the displacement of many more. He is the only candidate who will end this absurd violence, stop the US funding of military dictatorships, and end the immoral operations that lead to blowback and the tarnishing of our reputation. For these reasons, and many more, I will continue to support Ron Paul's candidacy.
As for repudiating the statements from 'No Mo Jooz': first of all, the comment doesn't even warrant acknowledgment. Secondly, if we all spent time responding to nonsensical blog comments we wouldn't have time for anything else.
Finally, wrt, the article from Paul's 1992 newsletter, I found out about that several months ago and found it quite saddening. My initial reaction to Paul's denial in writing the article was probably not different from yours. However, the more I think about it, the more I believe him that he did not write the article. Like the others around him have said - in politics and otherwise - it is very uncharacteristic of Dr. Paul to say the things that were printed in the article. In his 20+ year career in politics he hasn't said anything that would cause me to believe he is lying, and has firmly positioned himself on his principles, which reject racism and collectivism. Ghostwriters are not uncommon, so it is not inconceivable that Paul did not write the article, though he certainly should have been more careful in selecting the writer and screening the article(s). In my research I found a statement from Paul on the issue in which he took full responsibility for the incident. He has apologized repeatedly for the error, and has been paying for it for some time now. Regardless, the further his campaign gets, the more challenging it will become for them to overcome this regrettable incident.
"I no longer believe that Paul is a man of principle."
No and his previous racist comments and the excuses he offers are not even believeable to some of his supporters, sadly some are pleased with the hateful crud.
Ron Paul is not presidential material - IMHO
Never has been.
and what racist comments did he, the man who has always said that racism is just another ugly form of collectivism, specifically say?
I suggest finding REAL issues to discuss rather than going on witch hunts regarding WHO gives to WHICH campaign - especially if given LEGALLY.
And that goes for EACH candidate, not just Ron Paul.
I understand the irritation with Ron Paul's communications fumble, but I do wonder if you've thought through this issue fully. Can someone be paid for doing something good like delivering babies by a tyrant dictator or local blood thirsty warlord? Delivering babies is good, human, and provides the hope for change in the future, regardless of whether the warlord thinks it will give him more fighters in 15 years. The warlord may see the potential for turning good to evil, but that does not mean that the do-gooder doctor is unprincipled for accepting money from thugs to do good and get a just wage for doing that good.
Apply this reasoning to trade with China, or a security guard at an airport in a tyrannical regime. You can take peoples money if they are paying you to do something good even if they hope for evil to be brought out of your good. That is why people take money from people the disagree with on fundamental issues provided that there are no strings attached--and Ron Paul clearly repudiated them as a shameful group. How does a prochoicer take money from a prolifer if the candidate really believes that the prolifer advocates the death of young women in the back alley? How can a prolifer take the money of a prochoicer if the candidate really believes that person wants to take the lives of little unborn babies?
That answer may be, ironically, that the person receiving the money is actually VERY principled because he knows that the money, if legal, is not wrong for him to take because the person is immoral. The principled person's concern is to decide whether the giver will cause him to be beholden to their cause. Beyond that, he ought to respect the ideals he holds enough to use legal tender from whatever source in order to forward those principles. Is the American government "unprincipled" for accepting these racists' taxes? No, because the money's changing of hands is of no moral consequence. Ron Paul is not responsible for anything they say or do and is in no way associated with their causes, any more than a bank would be for holding a white supremacist's money. Now, if that white supremacist broke the law, or committed an act of genocide, or did anything illegal, then Ron Paul (or the bank) would have to return the money...and I think he would, because he is principled. But a principled person does not make money blood money simply because it came from the hand of someone with evil opinions. That racist may have earned the money as a crossing guard.
The critique of Ron Paul is an emotional one, not a principled one. Keep thinking through these issues.
Perhaps you should do some research into MoJo subscribers, revoke subscriptions of those that hold views that you find offensive and refund their money.. or give it to charity. But don't let them fund your company. I suggest all business people do the same. If we all did the same we could bleed all racism and hate from our society.
Those were clearly not the words of Dr. Paul in the reply you received, and I wouln't expect him to personally spend time on such a matter. "How are we to know that Paul does not share their motives?" Well, you could spend a little time listening to what he says, or reading some of his writings on the matter (the link below contains the most reasonable words I've ever heard from a politician on the matter of race):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
Well somebody needs to tell Mr. Black that a whole bunch of African Americans are supporting Ron Paul, and if he's as racist as he's made out to be, he wouldn't go anywhere near him after learning that news. God forbid this country become a melting pot of vastly different viewpoints coexisting peacefully, shopping at the same stores, breathing the same air, eating the same food, and supporting the same presidential candidate. That would be the end of the republic as we know it. I for one support the campaign's decision to deliberately not exclude anybody in this country.
tmb says: "Perhaps you should do some research into MoJo subscribers, revoke subscriptions of those that hold views that you find offensive and refund their money.. or give it to charity. But don't let them fund your company. I suggest all business people do the same. If we all did the same we could bleed all racism and hate from our society."
perfect response. I suggest you apply for a position at the RP campaign. imagine if Benton had've given this to the mojo guy!
A lot of dancing in these answers, but they stay away from the main issue: Ron Paul solicits (ads on Stormfront) and accepts donations from racists. David Duke and Don Black seem to think he's their best shot at a "White Renaissance", and it's not because Ron Paul has 'integrity' or 'understands the constitution'.
He asks for their money, he takes their money, and he's the Stormfront preferred candidate. How is that not an issue?
I do not buy the "you have to return any tainted money" line of reasoning. If a person is so bad that you do not want his money, why would it be a better world if he had it back. Another issue being how much resource will be spent on who donates versus discussing issues. Personally I would like Paul to take money from racists to keep talking about the end of the Iraq war.
The difference for me would be if he is soliciting on the site as suggested, or if this was instigated by the donor (or a response to a general solicitation).
Sorry to disagree with you all, but in order to fight for freedoms of ALL we can not and should not just allow those with our own beliefs to speak freely or contribute. Like Dr. Paul said if they think their money is going to help their objective it is NOT, but wouldn't we all rather see the money going to supporting a fine man like Paul than being used to oppress people. Paul IS for freedom and individual rights, get your heads out of the sand and realize this!!
The so called neo-Nazis have no power in our society. Not so with the Zionists and the money Senator Clinton receives from them to take us to war with Iran for Israel. No more young American blood for Israel.
He's selling his soul to the devil. It may seem insignificant, but when you knowingly accept money from such soiled hands you're making a statement. This is really too bad. While I was more of a Kucinich fan, I was really starting to respect and like Ron Paul. Now, I don't know what he stands for. "Your actions speak so loudly that I cannot hear what you say."
This article is just another smear attack against Ron Paul. The writer never refutes the logic of what Paul is saying; that the money is better spent on liberty than on racism.
This is how the MSM scares us, creates non-issues, that even Mother Jones is buying into.
Ron Paul would end the war on drugs and free millions of black men from the shackles of prison and a life with a criminal record (via pardons).
Anyone who supports the war on drugs is a billion times more racist than anything Ron Paul has ever done.
PS
Ron Paul is Highest-Polling Republican Among Black Voters
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/11/6216_ron_paul_refus...
And here we go down the slippery slope...
So, if candidates should return LEGAL donations by people whose views they find intolerable, then what next?
Should candidates return money from someone who had an abortion, if they are pro-life?
Or if they are anti-homosexual, should the candidate return money from even a heterosexual who supports gay rights?
Should money from a twice-divorced single mom with three children from two different men, one out of wedlock, be returned also?
Should a Christian candidate return money from a Catholic, because after all Catholics hold some different beliefs than a Protestant Christian!
Maybe they should return money from anyone who was ever caught smoking pot, or who ever drank a little too much alcohol, or who was ever accused of infidelity, or one who misses church regularly?
Come on now, this is pathetic!
Every other candidate should comb through all of their donations and send back any funds that came from people with questionable character or motives.
This should include detailed background checks.
By anonymously accepting donation money you are clearly sanctioning every belief held by any and all of your donors.
Background checks for all! Immediately!
We must hire more bureaucrats to administer this endeavor. We can pass a law that says the government must hire "Donor Combers" to make sure that no one with objectionable beliefs donates to any candidate.
What does it say about America if bad people are allowed to piss their money down the drain on candidates whose entire philosophy is in complete objection to the philosophy of the donor? We must not allow stupid people to do stupid things.
SO hey - then why does the good ol' United States of America ACCEPT oil from "evil" regimes like Iran.
Our govt calls Iran "evil", so accepting the oil from them means we are condoning what they stand for.
Same with China, the big human rights violators. We buy their goods by the shipload. And we seek them out, and we visit their country, and we sign contracts with them, too!!
This sad attempt to smear Ron Paul just shows how uneducated (and desperate!) people are.
If you want to attack Ron Paul, show your intelligence and courage by disagreeing ON THE ISSUES.
How much time and $$ should a campain waste weeding out such donors?
why should they even care? $500 out of 14 million, this buys these racist fools what??? Publicity from fools. That is all they get for it.
Ron Paul has a message of Freedom to spread, wasting time on this kind of "how does it look" nonsense is not part of his message. Stop looking for victims and look for solutions!
My $400 ($0.02 in 1912)
For all the noise that Ron Paul detractors have made about how there's not a chance in hell he'll ever get the nomination, and even if that completely impossible feat should somehow be accomplished, there's not a chance in hell Ron Paul will ever be elected President.
Still, it seems a lot of the detractors, who always include those caveats in what they write, are getting nervous about the prospect to the point where the "Paul is a BAD Man, who's concealing a BAD agenda" crap is increasing exponentially.
If the "He'll never get the nomination, and if nominated, he'll never get elected" prediction is so sound, then why are these guys wasting their time trashing Ron Paul?
Seems their time would be much better spent telling the world how Rudy, Mitt and Fred are "Bad Men with Bad Agendas", 'stead of wasting their efforts on the "never gonna' happen" guy.
Who's fooling themselves
Yeah..., and Dennis should send back and all the cash the Closet Bolsheviks are donating to the Kucinich campaign!
Gimme a break!
Find an ISSUE, will you?
This is AMERICA, people.
Nazis are allowed to exist, and have their say.
Commies are allowed to exist, and have their say.
White racists are allowed to exist and have their say.
Black racists are allowed to exist and have their say.
Even Rational people are allowed to exist and have their say!
Anyone who says that ANY group shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process because "we" don't like what they stand for, just doesn't understand, or believe in the principles America was founded on.
You're NO BETTER than the Nazis, and you're trying to employ a tactic they'd be PROUD to claim as their own!
That's the problem with you nut jobs. You actually think $500 buys political favor. I've donated $1000 to Ron Paul's campaign. Do you know what my views on race are? Should I expect to Ron Paul then? Does that mean I qualify for political favor?Grow up bleeding heart liberals and whine about something worthwhile. As benton says, if somebody wants to waste their money, its their personal choice.
This is funny, if Mojo got donations from some white supremesist they wouldn't make anything of it.
I wonder if Mojo has an article on Hillary's anti-semetic rantings? How can she even be the front runner, she's pro-war, and an anti-semite!
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/clintons.html
Mojo, please, if you care for our troops stop lowering yourself to the Fox News pro-Giuliani level. Those guys are slime-balls, and you could do better.
Oh yeah, Giuliani's pretty racist too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq5YGHQNHDU
To the author of this blog:
I can understand your comment that says accepting the donation "creates an implied obligation to these nut jobs and their priorities, which, even if rejected by Paul, is hard to deny. Are we to simply take Paul's word that these people aren't buying anything? How are we to know that Paul doesn't share their motives?"
I respond to this by simply pointing out the fact that I think the American Public has become trained to believe that ALL people running for or who hold office can be bought by special interest or other groups. It is easy to do a little research and see that Dr. Paul has NEVER once in his 10 years in office taken money from special interest groups. This is not a man who can be bought or sold...he has his principles that he will stick to nomatter what, there is no donation that will make him support a clearly racist cause.
If anything he is loyal to a fault with his view on liberty, and freedom. While I dont support the view of Mr. Black, he certainly has his right to express it. At the end of the day, we also dont know if Mr. Black is just fed up with wasteful government spending and taxes and would like Ron Paul to solve that problem.
My only point is that Ron Paul is not your typical bought and paid for candidate, and certainly would never consider supporting racist causes, he believes in liberty and personal freedom too much for that ignorant nonsense.
You of mother Jones is the one that has lost all credibility, and are a collectivist and racist. The only reason you want Paul to return the money is becuase it will damage the campaign financially. And you wish for Paul to disappear. To lower one's financial means is to lower one's ability to success. Mother Jones is no longer on my list. I can see right through your cynical hypocritical position.
Senator Clinton accepts money from the Zionists who support Israel, the successor state to the third Reich, in their Nuremberg type laws against the Palestinians. Free Palestine, end the occupation. Say no to Apartheid.
Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety. Senator Clinton refuses to return the thousands of dollars. Ron Paul is guilty for $500, Clinton, hundreds of times more. Why not talk about the biggest offender?
there isn't much of a grey area here. anybody care to defend the KKK as a respectable organization that should be treated the same as any other donor? once the source of the donation was realized, as negligable as it may have been, you would expect it to be returned just out of principle. pick your battles ron paul, because this is one you should not be fighting. it shows poor judgment on his behalf and it makes me question his political acumen.
FINALLY, a campaign and a candidate with some real integrity. If Ron Paul has hired men as intelligent and this Benton fellow, who can articulate a TRULY principled response like this. (Note to Josh -- when someone makes an unpopular decision that YOU dislike, but can articulate a SOLID reason for -- well, that is the very definition of being PRINCIPLED. It is you who are lacking in that department by smearing a man like this.)
OH, BTW I hadn't really taken much notice of this guy before -- but did some digging after reading THIS article -- and he looks like someone I should give some serious consideration to voting for.
Watch this video, Ron Paul is SUCH a racist:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3FzFUPMHRA
"Accepting Black's dirty money creates an implied obligation to these nut jobs and their priorities."
Maybe to most politicians in Washington, but not to Paul. If you think he can be bought, you haven't looked at his voting record during his terms in the House.
"If Paul really cared about rebuking the Neo-Nazis, he would ... donate their money to a group that counters them, such as the Anti-Defamation League."
Paul's own campaign is a direct counter anyone who would see the American government become like that of the Nazis. Have you ever read any of his speeches on individual rights?
Lame article. Rather than focusing on deep rooted philosophy that Paul espouses, namely individual rights, people get so entrapped by images. It's shallow and sad.
Have you ever bought an IBM product? Own IBM stock? If so IBM produced the programs that tattooed and selected Jews for execution. Are you a Nazi sympathizer for purchasing an IBM or IBM related product? Probably.
Racist? Bullfeathers.
Anyone can put a Dr. Paul ad on their site, whether it be neo-Nazis or PFLAG or anyone in between. Welcome to the Web, starring everybody.
As for the cash, so what? Benton has it right on the money. He simply gave an eloquent version of "A fool and his money are soon parted." Kind of like the donors to the D-squad and the RINOs...or Mojo subscribers...
When Dr. Paul wins it all We'll be waiting for Mojo to apologize for being wrong again. We won't hold out breath because we're not suicidal and Mojo won't admit being wrong. They used to be a reasonalbe pub but have gone down the toilet lately. This one just proves the point.
BTW, Lone Star Times is not a credible source because of their own biases as well.
And if $500 buys influence with a Presidential candidate then by my donations I'm the next Secretary of Defense! Implied obligation my a$$!
This really is an absurd attack on Ron Paul. I would argue that this decision is founded firmly on principle; rejecting a donation like this would be nothing more than playing politics as it would be implied that they would now do thorough background screening on all contributors - something we don't expect any campaign to do. Ron Paul is one of the most staunch supporters of individual rights since our founding fathers. Have you ever heard the quote, "I detest what you say, but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it."? Shouldn't we all support candidates who hold this view? What has happened to rational America?!?
What makes this seem like a hit-piece is that we don't see anything like this about other candidates, even though we know who's supporting them. Where's the piece on Hillary's decision to keep the $2,300 from Rupert Murdoch, and her $100k+ from News Corp, arguably the most dangerous bunch in America with the endless perpetuating of lies that lead to thousands of deaths of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqis? Hillary also gets the most contributions from corporations that are benefitting from the Iraq war, and stand to benefit from the upcoming war with Iran: . The list goes on and on, and Hillary is not the only dirty bird. If you are going to open up this can of worms you better start hitting the other candidates as well, otherwise you just look like a small-minded individual that is afraid that Ron Paul is stealing supporters from the political base in which you belong. While may still look like a small-minded individual, at least you wouldn't look so much like a smear-artist.
The URL from my previous comment got zapped.. here is is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_689...
I am not against free speech, but this is blatant ignorance on the part of the writer. If one reads the Constitution they will see that fringe groups are marginalized by the democratic process in this republic. It is the very thinking of this writer in which Nazi groups thrive! Wake up, and try to be American!
@ nmc
"anybody care to defend the KKK as a respectable organization that should be treated the same as any other donor?"
FDR, maybe?
After all, his first appointment to the Supreme Court was a former member.
The dancing is called logic. Ron Paul did not put up an ad at his website. The website put up a link to the campaign.
readsomehistory, i'm not going to read some history to confirm what your saying, but FDR was 60-75 years ago. are you suggesting it's ok to display the same racial sensibilities today that existed in the 1930's and 1940's? ron paul should give the money back -- or possibly donate it -- as a gesture. anything less is politically careless in 2007.
I'm suggesting, as several others have said, that any and every group in the US has a right to have a voice in American politics.
It's one of America's founding principles, and a damned good one.
Telling the "WE don't agree with THEM" groups that their participation is not welcomed, will not be permitted, and any money they contribute will be given to someone who opposes their existance, is just the kind of thing the Nazis revelled in.
If that's the road we want to take, then don't be surprised if some day we come to a place where contributions from Catholics are handed over to the Masons. ('Can't happen here', though, huh? Kind of like spying on people without warrants can never happen in America.)
Ron's message is clear enough, and well enough established that if a few a-holes want to look only at the fact that he's said: "Let's pry Israel off the US taxpayer's nipple", while ignoring the fact that he's said "Let's pry EVERY Foreign Nation off the US taxpayer's nipple", thinking that makes him a Jew hater like they are, well, that's their own dumb ass's fault.
Ron Paul should no more return their measley 500 bucks than Ralph Nader should have returned the considerably greater contributions he got from the Republican party.
Ralph wasn't about to "go Republican" if he had been elected, and anyone who thinks Ron is going to "go Nazi" over 500 bucks is just kidding themself, or desperately seeking any kind of mud to smear the guy with.
With real issues of life and death, you want to focus on silliness. And then you suggest that Ron Paul should give the money from some neo-Nazis to the Anti-Defamation League. But what about those who think the Anti-Defamation League isn't any good, either, claiming much of the time that those who criticize Israel are anti-Semites. If you can show that Ron Paul's decisions are influenced to favor neo-Nazi positions, that would be one thing. But to suggest that he should turn the money over to the Anti-Defamation League only replaces someone else's prejudice with your own.
Yeah, RIGHT!
Give the "Neo-Nazi" donations to the ADL!
HAH!
Just what we need - another JEW-BASED, JEW-BIASED, Jew Lapdog pRezident!
NO THANK YOU!
Ron Paul is his own man!
I had (wrongly) thought Mother Jones to be more independent than that.
I guess I was badly mistaken!
How much does MoJo donate to the ADL - or, vice-versa?
NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL!
www.RonPaul2008.com
Ladies and Gentlemen, meet your new President, Dr. Ron Paul!
(to 30 minutes of DEAFENING APPLAUSE!)
Josh, Honey, I am so disappointed in you. You seemed like such a smart, level headed little journalist when I've talked to you. What is going on that you can't write a simple article on a very popular presidential candidate & a very honest principled man without reverting to this childishness?
This is just silly.
I forgive you though, because when I talked to people about your magazine, they all warned me that it was not serious news, so I can see how it goes.
Debra Murphy
(from the gun show table & the fundraiser)
Josh is right. You(most) are all a punch of anti-Semites for not agreeing with my brother Jew that Ron Paul is an anti-Semite for not giving the money to David Horowitz's organization, Front Page magazine, which knows how to handle anti-Semites. I can tell that some of the posters are anti-Semites from the unfavorable way they talk about Jews and Israel.
Hey Josh-
Why don't you concentrate on WHY Stormfront is located in West Palm Beach? Why do a bunch of Nazis hang their hat, unmolested, in one of the most heavily Jewish parts of America?
Answer: Stormfront is an ADL front. The ADL is far more dangerous and racist than any political candidate.
"show me a proven example of a well-known Neo-Nazi group (or its leader) donating money to another well-known presidential candidate, or posting fundraising ads for the candidate on their web page."
As there's little to no qualitative difference between Zionism and Nazism, all of the money given to candidates by AIPAC and other Zionist groups are the moral equivalent of taking money from Neo-Nazis.
Hillary, Rudy, etc. are taking money from racists yet I don't hear you complaining about it.
["Does this mean that a perquisite of membership is the San Francisco Ron Paul Meetup group is a belief that it is morally fine to accept donations from Neo-Nazi groups?"]
Did she say anything to imply such a requirement?
No, Josh.
Probably what it means is that someone brought this blog to her attention, she checked to see if you had contacted anyone in the meet-up group or the campaign with your concerns before posting on MoJo (didn't, did ya'?) she looked around to see what else you might have posted
regarding Ron Paul, noticed the use of terms such as "the Paulites" and she reached the obvious conclusion that you were not a Ron Paul supporter before this came up, and never have been a Ron Paul supporter.
Your "membership" in a group who's stated purpose is to see Ron Paul nominated and elected was never more than a ruse to gain access.
["See, for example, the anti-semitic comments below by "No Mo Jooz." Why has nobody repudiated this guy?"]
Message Board Rule #1: Don't Feed The Trolls!
Because savve message boarders know that if you 'feed' the trolls by paying them the attention they crave, it only encourages them to keep coming back with more of the B.S.
They're like a 3 year old kid, throwing a screaming fit because you're talking to another adult about something and they're not the center of attention.
You want to take idiots like that seriously then hey.., it's YOUR blog.
You've got probably one or two fools around here who stick some anti-jew rant into the middle of each and every discussion that's commanding any attention.
I'm sure you must have noticed them (or HIM) before now.