Ron Paul Still Clings To White Supremacist CashI first wrote about this in October -- but it seems that Ron Paul is still holding on to that racist cash, despite his fund raising success. I guess that there is no contributor odious enough to be rejected -- so expect Ron Paul to solicit cash from Michale Jackson, OJ Simpson, and Drew Peterson.
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.
Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."
"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."
"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.
Why is this a big deal? Aside from the fact that it tells us a great deal about Ron Paul's (lack of) ethics and morality, he has recently accused patriotic Christians of being fascists. How much credibility can he have on that score when he takes money from an actual fascist and refuses to divest himself of it? Seems to me that fascism in America already wears a Ron Paul for President button.
No one suggests that Ron Paul screen his donors -- but when he knows that he is getting cash from such a source, he has no business keeping it. And as I've suggested, Ron Paul does not need to return the money to Black -- give it to a charitable organization that Paul supports that is absolutely antithetical to Black's views, such as the US Holocaust Museum or the Congress on Racial Equality.
Lone Star Times, which first broke this story, has another possible revelation about Ron Paul's ties to Nazis, racists, and other scummy types.
1
Ron Paul vs. The Philosophically Bankrupt
After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.
But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient end. There is an intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by writers and speakers on the political "left," "right," or "middle." Competing ideas and values that once engaged the minds of thoughtful men and women have given way to little more than pronouncements on behalf of narrowly-defined political programs; the validity of a proposition no longer depends upon reasoned analysis, but upon the outcome of public opinion polls.
Ron Paul's campaign interjects an energized, principled inquiry into the political realm, an undertaking for which men and women with no philosophic center or rigorous minds find themselves woefully ill-prepared.
Posted by: chris lawton at Wed Dec 19 17:21:30 2007 (+mD1v)
2
In other words, you are unable to defend Ron Paul for keeping this donation from a prominent leader of a racist group, so you would rather attack his opponents as lacking in principle.
Want proof that Ron Paul is not a principled ndividual (other thanhis keeping of Nazi cash)? Consider his actions regarding earmarks. He sponsors nearly half-a-billion in earmark projects each year for his district at the request of his constituents, but then votes against them because they are, by his lights, unconstitutional expenditures of funds -- knowing that they will be adopted as part of the budget. That means that Ron Paul is knowingly and intentionally responsible for what he claims to be unconstitutional spending. Were he actually principled, he would refuse to sponsor the measures in the first place and make the case to his constituents that he is right to do so -- and then let the chips fall where they may at election time.
3
How's he going to return the money? Is he going to return it, so that this guy can use it for whatever white supremacist things he uses it for? What good does that do?
To return it would be to go against everything he's ever spoken about, which is personal liberty. Everyone has a right to freedom of speech and thought, even if the rest of us don't like it (especially if the rest of us don't like it). It's a fundamental human liberty. The supremacist is scum, but I respect Ron Paul for taking his same principled stance he always has.
He didn't call patriotic Christians fascists. I'm a patriotic Christian, and I agree with him. He was simply talking about how a bad thing (like Tax Hike Mike) can come wrapped in Christmas ribbons and bows and crosses and flags and all that imagery. The Anti-Christ isn't going to be wearing a sign saying he's the Anti-Christ. George W. Bush ran on a no-nation building, no-policing the world platform, and his presidency has been anything but that. Something that seems to be one thing can become another. Huckabee is acting like he's the only Christian running, when he's not.
Ron Paul doesn't use his religion for political purposes, unlike the other candidates he's running against.
"That means that Ron Paul is knowingly and intentionally responsible for what he claims to be unconstitutional spending."
No, actually, that spending is in the bill whether he gets it for his district or not. If it didn't go to his district, it would go to someone else's. The money is already appropriated.
The man doesn't even take a congressional pension, which would be millions of dollars, for godsakes. You can't attack Ron Paul by saying he's increasing spending. It's the most ludicrous thing you could say.
4
LG:
1) Send it back to the twisted Nazi motherf*cker -- or, as I suggested, donate it someplace that is antithetical to his views. Either way, the paul campaign is not tainted.
2) Yeah, the sick motherf*cker has free speech rights -- and Ron Paul has free association rights. Ron Paul, if he TRULY believed what you say, would reject the money on the grounds that he himself does not want to be sullied by the association with the racist motherf*cker.
3) So what you are saying is that Ron Paul is willing to act to ensure that money is unconstitutionally spent in his district. Thank you for confirming his hypocrisy.
