Ron Paul plans to keep donation from white supremacist donor

[MystikWizard]

He'll be on Meet the Press this Sunday and will be asked about this, I'm sure. He'll handle it well.

 

[construct]

Of course he isnt a white supremacist. He was on Meet the Press I believe and they asked him about the White Supremacist thing, and he said point blank he doesn't want their money nor does he support them and he will use the money agaisnt them. He didn't give a walk around, he didn't talk in circles, he said no absolutely no filler.

Well, I don't suppose it really matters. I'm not going to vote for him anyway. I don't vote for Republicans.

 

[opinterph]

That poster goes on to point out the “big problem” associated with this digging in Ron Paul’s past and links to this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

Yada yada yada, already been debunked. The article in question was written by a ghost writer and was immediately retracted and an appology issued.

Ron Paul said straight up he doesnt want money from them nor does he support them. He said it point blank.

(From the Muckraker Report link)
Congressman Ron Paul: In 1992, … If you look at my 30-year record and my numerous writings on the subject of race, I think anyone will clearly see that those comments do not reflect my beliefs.

Now, do you want to be fair and look up the number of articles he's placed decrying racism,

As beekman001 (and others) have pointed out, the Daily Kos report has already been “debunked” – even here in the CE&P forum. I was aware of that when I included the link from the somewhat hysterical/disenchanted Stormfront blogger. I accepted that explanation previously, but have now started rethinking the issue. (Midnight77, some of those previous articles might prove helpful here.)


The Daily Kos entry also points out:

It is extremely difficult to track down content from the Ron Political/Survival Report today. The Report only had about 7,000 subscribers, and Paul has—unsurprisingly—refused to release copies to the media.

And a comment to that post:

If he stays in the race, I expect that some reporters will dig up a collection of the Ron Paul ** Report, and we can see what was really published.

And another comment:

Now, keep in mind that Paul advances legislation for consideration by the congress all the time. Where once has he proposed legislation against any race, let alone one about "blacks"?

Let me tell you where... no where... because the man isn't a racist, which anyone who spends 5 minutes watching his youtube videos can tell.

That leads me to wonder to what extent Ron Paul has publicly decried racism. Has he published a public statement that clearly indicates his personal disapproval of racism and if so, how would he seek to enforce the elimination of racism as a form of discrimination?


I have searched for a clear statement from Dr. Paul on this issue and am having difficulty locating one. According to Free Market News, the following excerpt from 2002 represents “his own best rebuttal.”

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. [Source Link]

So the last sentence suggests that racism will continue as long as people think in terms of group identity. In the previous paragraph Dr. Paul suggests an antidote (medical term) to cure society of racism. My problem is that the candidate does not unequivocally denounce racism, but seems to regard it as a chronic condition which exists and that may or may not be cured at some time in the future. Is this really his strongest statement on the issue?

The problem is whether Rep. Paul is a closet white supremacist.

 

[iman]

Who would have guessed that the libertarians would get a case of situational ethics!

They knock the other candidates for their funding sources but think it is OK for Paul, who looks like he does not want to offend white racists.

Paul does not need the $500, so what other motive would he have for keeping it other than an unwillingness to offend the bigot constituency?

OH, THE SHAME OF IT ALL!

 

[Apollo]

Who would have guessed that the libertarians would get a case of situational ethics!

They knock the other candidates for their funding sources but think it is OK for Paul, who looks like he does not want to offend white racists.

Paul does not need the $500, so what other motive would he have for keeping it other than an unwillingness to offend the bigot constituency?

OH, THE SHAME OF IT ALL!

did you not read anything in the forum? Did you not watch the youtube video? If you had you would not be saying what you just said.

 

[iman]

The problem with Paul's explanation that donated money will not influence him is the same argument every candidate makes about donated money. Mainstream candidates can make the argument that they receive so much money from so many sources that no single source will influence them. The Republicans claim that energy policy is not influenced by the fact that oil and gas interests are their prime bankroller. If the explanation does not work for other candidates I don't see why it should be accepted in Paul's case.

The difference between Paul and other candidates is that other candidates are quick to return money when it comes from repugnant sources and Paul is not, he accepts their support.

Since Paul's candidacy isn't going anywhere and he is not likely to ever get an important bill through Congress, this may be his one and only chance to show some leadership. It would be an admirable gesture for Paul to return any funding from racist, nativist, anti-semitic, and conspiratorial sources. The question is: Would he have any money left?

SHOW SOME LEADERSHIP RON - GIVE THE MONEY BACK!

 

[Apollo]

The problem with Paul's explanation that donated money will not influence him is the same argument every candidate makes about donated money. Mainstream candidates can make the argument that they receive so much money from so many sources that no single source will influence them. The Republicans claim that energy policy is not influenced by the fact that oil and gas interests are their prime bankroller. If the explanation does not work for other candidates I don't see why it should be accepted in Paul's case.

The difference between Paul and other candidates is that other candidates are quick to return money when it comes from repugnant sources and Paul is not, he accepts their support.

Since Paul's candidacy isn't going anywhere and he is not likely to ever get an important bill through Congress, this may be his one and only chance to show some leadership. It would be an admirable gesture for Paul to return any funding from racist, nativist, anti-semitic, and conspiratorial sources. The question is: Would he have any money left?

SHOW SOME LEADERSHIP RON - GIVE THE MONEY BACK!

The difference is that candidates lie and run with their tail between their legs. What you just describe is the political run around. They don't know what happened and dont want people talking about it so they lie to us and give back money to the group even though they most likely has already spent that money.

Ron Paul said he does not support them. He does not want their money, and he will use their money agaisnt them. Why give money to a group that promotes hate when you can use their money agaisnt them to promote tolerance.

And Ron Paul has a HUGE following but it isn't covered that much because it isnt mainstream. Ron Paul is making more money than all the candidates yet he is behind all the others?

I wish the other candidates would show some leadership and GROW A BACKBONE!

 

[iman]

Since Mr. Paul has said that he believes that there really is a War on Christmas by the "secular progressives" he could find some nice Christian Fundamentalist group to donate the money to.

Leadership is about character and Ron Paul is flunking the test.

 

[Homoaffectional]

The evidence seems overwhelming that [random name snipped] is racist.

Wow, so when determining whether or not someone is racist, one actually looks at the *EVIDENCE*, and not what said person actually claimed about themselves??????????????? Really???????????????????????????????????? Wow!!!!!!! You learn something new every day!

 

[opinterph]

You learn something new every day!

I detect sarcasm and perhaps a carryover from some previous discussion. However, just to make one point perfectly clear~ please recognize that Mr. Black is a public figure – not a fellow poster.

 

[JackFTwist]

so the people supporting St Ron have discovered that Ron Paul is like any other politician with his hand out for money from whatever source -

oh he's not every other politician because after all anyone else would have returned money from a white racists.

and it is fun to watch the principled libertarians explain away that this is "only" $500 so they can ignore principle

at the end of the day the message is loud and clear about who Ron Paul does business with

 

[Apollo]

so the people supporting St Ron have discovered that Ron Paul is like any other politician with his hand out for money from whatever source -

oh he's not every other politician because after all anyone else would have returned money from a white racists.

and it is fun to watch the principled libertarians explain away that this is "only" $500 so they can ignore principle

at the end of the day the message is loud and clear about who Ron Paul does business with

seems you didn't read the thread either. none of us are saying it is "just" 500 bucks. we are saying its 500 bucks he can use agaisnt them which is what he said he will do.

 

[construct]

and it is fun to watch the principled libertarians explain away that this is "only" $500 so they can ignore principle

at the end of the day the message is loud and clear about who Ron Paul does business with

Since I'm the one who used the phrase "only $500," let me be very clear that I am not a libertarian, principled or otherwise.

My point was that $500 is small change compared to the amount that he has raised in one-day blitzes and that it was silly to say that he didn't have or couldn't get $500 to return if he wanted to.

I also said that he didn't need to return it but could use it to undermine the efforts of white nationalists. I actually am not yet convinced that using it to spread his message of "freedom" effectively does that. Perhaps donating it to the United Negro College Fund might be a more pointed use for the money, and it would get him some good press on the side.

 

[JackFTwist]

construct, just please know I was not replying to you i that post, I was just referring to the whole discussion - I was unaware that you had used that phrase and I was not in any way calling you out by using it

I take the stance that no matter how small the donation is, you don't keep it when the source is questionable because hypocrasy is just as hypocritical at $5 as at $50 as at $5,000 and $50,000, etc - and it does put a moral reprehensible "we take from any one" sign of the campaign - there is no such thing as small change (and that I guess I am saying that one thing in response to you)

That is otherwise not directed towards you since you are not a libertarian, it is directed towards those who pretend that any one political party or politician is somehow morally purer than any other

When money comes in it is hard to check every dollar - but once a campaign knows the source of a donation is questionable (or morally reprehensible) you give it back

the argument that if Paul keeps it, it is a better use, would open the door to taking money from organized crime, from corporations and big business(also organized crime), Nazis -

we are what we keep to use for ourselves and what career politician Ron Paul has done is morally reprehensible and that I address to everyone

 

[Apollo]

construct, just please know I was not replying to you i that post, I was just referring to the whole discussion - I was unaware that you had used that phrase and I was not in any way calling you out by using it

I take the stance that no matter how small the donation is, you don't keep it when the source is questionable because hypocrasy is just as hypocritical at $5 as at $50 as at $5,000 and $50,000, etc - and it does put a moral reprehensible "we take from any one" sign of the campaign - there is no such thing as small change (and that I guess I am saying that one thing in response to you)

That is otherwise not directed towards you since you are not a libertarian, it is directed towards those who pretend that any one political party or politician is somehow morally purer than any other

When money comes in it is hard to check every dollar - but once a campaign knows the source of a donation is questionable (or morally reprehensible) you give it back

the argument that if Paul keeps it, it is a better use, would open the door to taking money from organized crime, from corporations and big business(also organized crime), Nazis -

we are what we keep to use for ourselves and what career politician Ron Paul has done is morally reprehensible and that I address to everyone

lol all politicians take money from politicians, this isnt a new practice. they also take money from lobbyist and definitely doent give it back.

 

[iman]

The argument that not accepting a donors money is the equivalent of denying them either the right to vote of their right to free speech is the biggest smelliest red herring dragged across these boards in a long time. I'm shocked ICO7! I presume you don't want cheese on that old herring, do you?

The bogus Republican SCOTUS decision that money is free speech does not, OBVIOUSLY, obligate a candidate to accept everybody's money. If the white racist wishes to exercise his right of free speech he is perfectly able to take an advertisement out supporting Mr. Paul in the KKK Daily Mirror or any other venue of his choice.

PLEASE RON, GIVE BACK THE MONEY!

 

[MystikWizard]

PLEASE RON, GIVE BACK THE MONEY!

If the NAACP or the Black Panthers gave money to Barack Obama, or La Raza gave money to Hillary Clinton, should they be forced to give back the money, as well?

I actually admire him for taking a stand, because the typical politician would give back the money and cave in to the pandering of special interest groups ... which needs to stop.

Would you want to give $500 to Stormfront? No? Good. Paul doesn't either. So, the money was spent for good purposes to promote his campaign.



Paul articles decrying racism ...



Government and Racism

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm


What Really Divides Us?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html


None of Your Business

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul192.html


The Consistent Constitutionalist

http://www.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin10.html


The Trouble With Forced Integration

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html


Interview Discussing It:

http://www.ronpauldonors.com/stephanie-miller_ron-paul_120607.mp3


So, what else do you got?

 

[iman]

If the NAACP or the Black Panthers gave money to Barack Obama, or La Raza gave money to Hillary Clinton, should they be forced to give back the money, as well?

Your equating the above organizations to a White Racist? That's like equating the Knights of Columbus to the Mafia.

 

[MystikWizard]

Your equating the above organizations to a White Racist? That's like equating the Knights of Columbus to the Mafia.

Okay, so what if a single member of the Black Panthers donated money to Barack Obama. Should he be forced to give the money back?

There have been many "racist" comments out of the mouths of some of the leaders of this group over the years. And I would advise you not to go there, if you want to argue that point, as I would be happy to bring some quotes and videos here if you want to go that route.

Despite that, I would personally not demand Obama give back the money. Instead, I would look at where Obama stands on the issues and examine his past record to make an informed decision.

 

[iman]

I think Paul's hostility to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is pertinent here. Paul claims that his opposition to the act is based on his belief that the act is an unwarranted Federal Interference in personal rights is the same argument made by George Wallace and other segregationists of the period. What the Civil Rights Act did was the enforce the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, rights that were being denied a large group of people based on race.

Paul was more comfortable with basic rights being denied African Americans than he was with Federal enforcement. He also denies that the act has done any good for race relations and instead credits a "change in public attitude". Of course attitudes have changed but that is due in large part to the act not in spite of it.

You know, if it walks like a duck...........