Ron Paul a Racist?
Dec 19, 2007 Political
I have heard these stories since Paul started gaining momentum and I think they are most likely a bunch of BS. I realize that Paul has indicated he has no problems taking money from white supremacist organizations and I agree with him in that regard. He cannot control who decides to donate to his campaign and he should welcome the money of people who want to support him. This is true of all the candidates. Some donors expect they will get something in return and a problem only arises when they do. If a politician gets a donation and then reciprocates there is a problem. This is how lobbyist scandals occur. The Democrats seem to be a bit better at staying out of trouble for this but many openly do this. Republicans do it and some end up in jail (as they should).
There is a report out from some Neo Nazi website that indicates Ron Paul is one of them and that he attends meetings:
Comrades:
I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous — and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party [VNN Forum]
I don’t believe this for one minute though I suppose anything can be true. But logic tells me that this group would not out Paul if they wanted him in the White House (a house name I am sure they relish). If this were true and they outed him he would never be elected and their racist agenda would not be met. Therefore, I just cannot imagine it is true. This guy says he does not know about it being good to out Paul but his whole story lacks good reason. Why would a bunch of white racists meet in a Thai restaurant?
I don’t think Ron Paul is a white supremacist or a racist and this little “outing” did nothing to change that opinion.
***Warning: If you go to the forum you will read vile stuff from disturbed people.***
Big Dog Salute to LGF
Tags: racist, ron paul, white supremacist
Mona Charen of NRO Skewers Ron Paul
Nov 23, 2007 Link Fest, Political
I am not a Ron Paul supporter but to be clear, I have not gotten on the bandwagon of any candidate. I need to see more before I take a decision as to whom I will support. I understand there is a big net roots campaign for Ron Paul of Texas. I have written in the past that I like most of Paul’s views on domestic policy but I have some real issues with his foreign policy especially with regard to the war on terror in Iraq. I just can’t get my hands around this idea that we caused the attack on 9/11.
However, I have found that Paul appears to be an honest man with strong devotion to his ideals. While I might not agree with all of them, I can see his is true to them and does not flip flop around like many other candidates. Mona Charen of NRO wrote a piece about Paul and in it I think she went out of bounds. She makes some good points but then likens him to some of the groups who happen to support him. She also took a stab at him because he received money from a person (or people) who have bad beliefs.
I do not think a politician has to give back money just because the donor has ideas that others do not like. This is not to say that candidates like Hillary Clinton should be able to keep money that was donated under questionable circumstances which border the realm of illegality (if they are not down right illegal). This goes for all candidates but when donors just happen to be people with whom others disagree it is unreasonable for anyone to expect them to return the money. The politician in question does not have to agree with the donor to accept the money.
Imagine if Clinton were required to give back money from the gay and lesbian or ILLEGAL immigrant support groups because others found their positions detestable? Of course Hillary agrees with the groups so that makes it easier but I imagine that she would accept money from any conservative group that donated it legally regardless of their positions. If the person wanted Hillary to win she would take their money no matter what positions they personally held as should any politician, so long as the donations are legal. Charen makes the leap that Neo Con (a term that more people than Paul use) is shorthand for the Jews. How many times have Democrats used that term and why have Jews not found it offensive?
There is a little battle going on and the Paul campaign sent a letter to clear up some of Charen’s assertions. Whether or not that will do any good is hard to say.
However, it might be helpful if the Paul supporters stopped inundating email in boxes with their ardent support for Paul. Ticking off the people who have the power to write widely read columns does not seem to be a smart course of action.
As always, please feel free to comment.
Others with similar items:
Nuke’s, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Woman Honor Thyself, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Chuck Adkins, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Democrats, domestic policy, Hillary Clinton, honest man, illegal immigrant, mona charen, neo con, nro, ron paul, war on terror
Ron Paul Triples Support in Iowa!
Nov 21, 2007 General
The latest polls are out for the GOP contest in Iowa and they show Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney in a virtual tie for the top spot. Though touted as a surprise the real surprise is that Ron Paul has tripled his support in that state. Paul polled at 2% in the past and is now up at 6% which ties him with John McCain.
Paul supporters will no doubt be pleased that their candidate’s message is getting out and giving him better numbers as the primary approaches. If Paul keeps this pace he could be the front runner by the time the polls open in January.
Keep it up Ron-bots, your message is being heard.
Source:
Washington Post
Tags: front runner, gop, john mccain, mike huckabee, mitt romney, ron paul, supporters
No Hablas No Problem
Nov 19, 2007 Political
To a rational person it only makes sense to require workers to speak the native tongue of the country in which they work. This is not to say that people who do temporary work in other countries should have to learn the native language, that is what interpreters are for. However, when a person moves into a country and decides that he will live and work there then that person has an obligation to learn the language of the country in which he lives. If anyone does not want to learn the language then no employer should be required to hire that person. That is, unless you are an employer in the United States and your elected leaders pander to groups of people, many of whom are here ILLEGALLY, that vote overwhelmingly for a particular party.
Nancy Pelosi has threatened to block an amendment to a bill that would protect employers from lawsuits if they refused to hire someone who does not speak English. This all came about because some Hispanic Democrats threatened to vote against a patch that would fix the Alternative Minimum Tax for a year, a move that would prevent millions of wage earners from being taxed as if they were millionaires. In other words, the Hispanic Democrats are willing to hurt wage earners in favor of helping people who pay little in taxes, would probably never be affected by the AMT and who refuse to learn English. I thought that members of Congress represented this country and not people who, in large part, do not belong here. The main antagonist is Representative Charles Gonzalez of Texas, a man who probably swan across the Rio to get here. Gonzalez said “If it is not relevant [speaking English on the job], it is discriminatory, it is gratuitous, it is a subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin.”
Just how is this discriminatory and who gave Congress the right to tell a private employer what qualifications he is allowed to set for employees? I understand that they may legislate against discrimination for race, creed, age and a number of other things but if an employer requires English then it is none of Congresses’ business. The fact that the Hispanics would screw the rest of the country in order to force Employers to bow down to the wishes of non English speaking people is wrong.
How did these people get the job? If the employer does not speak Spanish (or any other language) is he required to get an interpreter so he can communicate? Should we force the employer to learn a new language or should we force the person who wants the job to learn a new one? It seems like an easy choice to me but to Pelosi and her amigos in the Congress it is not as obvious. Someone should tell Gonzalez to take his sorry rear back across the Rio and run for office there since he is more concerned with that way of life than the American way.
I have lived in or visited several foreign countries and I made the effort to learn enough of the language to communicate my needs. I did not expect them to learn my language because that would not be appropriate. I would not expect them to hire me for a job there if I could not communicate with their customers. As for the issue of telling people they have to speak English to each other while on the job, the issue of free speech does not apply. An employer in private industry may tell employees what they are and are not allowed to discuss and in what language they must do it.
It is important to remember that the employer is the boss and may set job requirements including dress codes, uniforms, hair styles, body piercings, tattoos and LANGUAGE. The Congress has no business getting involved and they certainly do not belong holding up legislation in an effort to blackmail other members of Congress, especially legislation that is designed to keep people from paying taxes they were never meant to pay.
I wonder if Gonzalez would support me if I went to a Spanish speaking establishment (whose customers all spoke Spanish) and I was refused a job because I do not speak that language?
The Democrats have been an absolute failure as the majority and Nancy Pelosi is no leader at all. She cannot even whip a bunch of malcontents from the Hispanic group into shape. If she knew what she was doing this would not be an issue but then again…
If she knew what she was doing she would be a Republican.
I wonder what Ron Paul would do if he was running the place?
Source:
WSJ Opinion Journal
Tags: alternative minimum tax, antagonist, charles gonzalez, Congress, Democrats, hispanic democrats, nancy pelosi, native language, pander, private employer, ron paul, speaking english
The Ron Paul Revolution
Nov 17, 2007 Political
I have to start off by saying that I like Ron Paul. I don’t know that I like him enough to vote for him for president yet but I like most of his positions. There is a Ron Paul Revolution that appears to be coming from the youth in America, those of college age who are most likely fed up with politics as usual in this country. The problem is, will there be enough of them to help him win? If the history of voting shows anything, it might not be an issue because the youth in America tend NOT to vote. That is why the mainstream politicians court the vote of the seasoned among us. The elderly vote in droves compared to the young however, Paul’s age might help him with the elderly vote. One other thing; is Paul the candidate that can beat any Democrat on the ticket?
Paul has great ideas about retuning this country to following the Constitution. His Congressional nickname is Dr. No because he votes no on any item that does not conform to the limits of the Constitution. As far as any of the candidates are concerned, his voting record is the only one that shows conformity to the Constitution.
Paul is for placing us back on the gold standard and for abolishing the IRS and he would repeal the income tax, all are not bad ideas. Placing us on the gold standard would not allow us just print money to handle inflation. Our country did well under the gold standard and it is time our money was backed by something of value. The backing of the words of politicians is not very strong. The tax system in this country is a sham and it allows government to take our money and redistribute it anywhere they so desire. Congress has shown that it does not know how to handle money and that it is fiscally irresponsible. The XVI Amendment, passed in 1913, is reported to have never been ratified by the required 3/4 of the states because Ohio was not “a state” due to an administrative error. Regardless of the arguments, the tax code has been in effect for nearly 100 years and the only way to do it right is to repeal it and start over.
The IRS is nothing more than the enforcement arm of the extortion racket the government runs. In the days of the mob, people were forced to join protection rackets. If they refused to pay some big guy named Bruno showed up and beat the hell out of them or their business mysteriously burned to the ground. The government extorts money from us and we cannot limit them when they do it. If they passed a law requiring everyone to pay 80% of income in taxes we could not stop it. If we refused to pay, the IRS (their Bruno) would come looking for us and make life miserable. Paul is on to something when he says that we should get rid of this stuff. I like his Constitutional approach. He is not like by the status quo because he says the things DC insiders do not like.
One thing that Ron Paul is adamant about is getting out of the UN. I agree 100% with him on that and believe that we should dissolve all treaties with regard to the UN and we should kick them out of our country. They are worthless and oppose us at every turn.
There are negatives though. Paul is in his 70s and that is a liability though he seems to be in good shape and is handling the rigor of a campaign well. It is still a concern though being young is not necessarily a guarantee one will not die while in office (JFK), it just means that they have a better chance.
There are also the fringe groups that support Paul. The Skinheads is probably the major one but I am sure there are others. I do not think for one minute that Ron Paul courts these people or that he agrees with their message but it is disconcerting that these kinds of folks would flock to his message. Regardless of how Paul feels, perception is reality to many people and many will perceive that he has their philosophies.
The other thing to think about is can Ron Paul beat any of the Democrats that are running? He certainly can garner votes from young people fed up with the system and he can garner votes from moderate conservatives who want the country run in accordance with the Constitution but there are a lot of liberals who are going to vote and they do not like this idea of limited government or repealing the income tax. Liberals are for big government and lots of tax money to spend on worthless programs. Since universal health care is not part of the Constitution, they will not like Paul’s positions because he would deny those things liberals believe to be entitlements.
While I agree with Paul on domestic issues, I am not in agreement with his foreign policy ideas. Regardless of what one believes about the war in Iraq, a complete withdrawal would result in disaster in Iraq as well as here at home. If we are perceived as weak then the radical Muslims will increase their attacks upon us. Clinton’s decisions not to attack them after they continually attacked us led to 9/11. Despite the rewritten history and the Berger stolen documents, it is undeniable that this is what happened. Bin Laden told us that he attacked us because of the weakness displayed by Clinton. If Ron Paul displays a similar weakness then we will be hit again.
If Ron Paul is unwilling to use our military then he should not be President. If, on the other hand, he has some idea as to how to use them to keep us from being attacked then I can listen to what he has to say. I realize that Paul believes we attacked illegally and that the money is being wasted and I know liberals would love to spend it on street corner abortion clinics or other such things. With regard to Paul, the money is worthless if we are attacked here at home and with regard to liberals, they will not get the money if Paul is President. However, if Paul agrees to withdraw all of the financial support we provide around the world and bring our troops home from all nations and put them on bases guarding our country from enemies (and ILLEGALS) then we might be on to something. This means ALL support but it also means that we would be abandoning our allies like Israel, unless Paul has some idea about a treaty with them to help protect them from the Muslim world. I doubt that would happen because Paul seems convinced that since we were able to stare down a Soviet Union with nukes that an Iran with nukes would pose little threat and should be of no concern. I am not sure that he understands that Ahmadinejad is not plating with a full deck and would launch on Israel. In that case I would have to throw back the Ron Paul supporter’s question; WWRPD?
I have not decided on a candidate as of yet. I am watching and listening to see who will do the best job for this country and who can beat the Democratic candidate. I will continue to watch Paul with the rest of them (I never discounted him like the media did) and will decide as we get closer to the election.
One thing is for sure, thoughtful comments and dialog will be beneficial to the process but Ron Paul spammers calling names does little to help the process.
Someone from the Revolution enlighten me and my readers.
Tags: conformity, Congress, constitution, Democrats, gold standard, illegals, income tax, Military, President, ron paul, sham, war