Paul Challenged to Return Donation From Extremist Backer

Whenever Ron Paul is found to be receiving support from racist or neo-Nazi groups, his cultists (and there really is no better term for them) rush to his defense. They spam any blog which exposes Paul with bogus claims that the criticism represents mere “guilt by association” and often claim that Paul was unaware of the support. The Lone Star Times is working to put an end to that last defense by showing that Paul received a contribution from an extremist and are challenging him to repudiate it:

A investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of Stormfront, a “white power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.

As I previously noted, Paul has received the endorsement of Stormfront. Some Paul cultists claimed that he must be unaware of their support. The Lone Star Times has demonstrated that public records show a contribution from Don Black to Paul’s campaign. The Lone Star Times calls on Paul to repudiate such groups and the views they hold, as well as to donate the money received from them to charity. (They recommend donating the money so that the money won’t be returned to them to promote their “psychotic bile.”)

From time to time candidates will return the donations from unsavory groups which they do not want to be associated with. Any serious candidate, Democrat or Republican, would repudiate the support from groups such as Stormfront. In contrast Paul has worked to attract the support of such groups and even promotes policies which might advance their agenda as I previously discussed here and here. If Paul does not wish to be associated with such groups it is time for him to do the honorable thing and repudiate them. My bet is that he won’t as his writings and actions suggest his views are closer to the views of such groups than he makes apparent in more public arenas such as the Republican debates. I hope Paul proves me wrong on this and, if not, the media starts asking Paul the hard questions.


  1. 1
    rick says:

    take the zit off ron paul while leaving the basketball sized tumors on the other candidates. I would not object to a black power group member’s donation to say obama.
    or a mormon cult member giving to romney.
    or how about a baby-killing abortion activist giving to hillary?? whats with this country anyway??? or a person linked to that big organized crime group (but not yet convicted of any crime) giving to rudy…cmon, get real…the way its going is to a diversified equal-opportunity tyranny… freedom for no-one…

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Fifteen minutes. The Paul apologizers are a bit slower than usual tonight!

    That’s another common excuse of the Paul cultists–that no crime was committed. Promoting racism and neo-Nazi ideas is not a crime. That doesn’t mean it isn’t distasteful and shouldn’t be condemned by someone worthy of being elected.

  3. 3
    rick says:

    what about the groups i mentioned… they are ALL (including the one you mentioned)
    just as unsavory to a lot of people…
    when you want to know who runs a country, ask yourself who am i always or never to speak badly of….

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    “what about the groups i mentioned… they are ALL (including the one you mentioned)
    just as unsavory to a lot of people”

    Thanks. In expressing that view you help demonstrate what the Ron Paul cult is all about (in addition to spamming blogs)–and it is definitely not libertarian

  5. 5
    Anonymous says:

    I think is silly to suggest that he should have somehow known about this white supremacist’s support. His campaign should have written code for reverse donor lookup so they can weed out any unsavory donors I guess.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    It is hardly silly to suggest that he should have known considering that Paul has been actively soliciting the support from such groups.

    The value of this donation is for the benefit of Paul-apologists who wish to pretend that Paul doesn’t know what is going on. Paul has received the endorsement of Stormfront. Stormfront has a widget at their site to donate to Paul. Now there is public record of the donation from the head of Stormfront. The ball is in Paul’s court as to whether he wants to repudiate such support, as any legitimate candidate would, or whether he wants to remain a fringe candidate of the far right extremists.

  7. 7
    b-psycho says:

    Odd that he would even accept their money, since he’s obviously not strapped for funding. Even if he were, no one has a blind spot in judgment that big.

    At the same time, I’m wondering about reasoning of the other end of the transaction too. WTF use would neo-nazis have for someone w/ an isolationist foreign policy? I woulda thought they’d back Tancredo.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:


    I suspect that a huge percentage of Paul’s money comes from extremists groups like this. Note the material in the earlier posts I link to. This includes a link to the letter he sends to contributors. The letter is clearly addressed to right wing extremists–which would only be done if they realized that this is where the contributions were coming from.

    Also see the earlier posts for more on why Paul’s policies fit in well with neo-Nazi groups. Paul’s views are alarmingly close to theirs in many areas. Paul also ignores the 14th Amendment, as well as rejecting separation of church and state in the 1st Amendment (as well as the secular nature of the main body of the Constitution). As he ignores some of the freedoms granted by the Constitution, and ignores the extension of the Bill of Rights to state governments under the 14th Amendment, this leaves an opportunity for neo-Nazi groups to promote their agenda on a state and regional basis.

    Paul has received far less scrutiny than he should . The media likes him since he makes the most sense of any Republican on Iraq and some other issues, and they ignore his other views. Groups like Stormfront have a better understanding of Paul’s views and realize that the best way to bring fascism to America would be to elect Ron Paul.

  9. 9
    b-psycho says:

    No offense, but you might want to get your terms straight.

    I disagree with Paul on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but the potential for abuse there isn’t fascist. It’d be more accurate for your argument to say that state-level evangelical extremists could take advantage of that loophole, as fascism involves two things that Paul opposes: melding of state & corporate power, and militarism.

    BTW: no, I’m not voting for Paul. Haven’t voted since 2000, and personally I find our political system too deeply corrupt to bother. No matter who is elected, once they take office it’s virtually impossible to hold them accountable to us anyway.

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    “No offense, but you might want to get your terms straight.”

    Actually your “correction” is what I was actually saying after you misinterpreted it at the start of your second paragraph. This is why neo-Nazi groups find Paul attractive. (This may be clearer in my discussion in the linked post as opposed to my very brief overview in the comment.)

  11. 11
    Jane Wilson says:

    Nice try Ron Chusid but why don’t you cover the MAJOR fraud in the Hillary campaign?
    oh that’s right, that would mean you actually cared about the truth and weren’t just trying to bash Ron Paul. Also by the ***”ACLU”*** link under ***”Useful References”*** I think we get a good idea of the incredible bias that your operating under. Move along people nothing to see here but a frustrated screaming liberal trying to force/manipulate people to back his pathetic political views.

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:

    Jane Wilson,

    My, you sure do have a lot of defenses to deny the truth. I’ve had plenty of posts criticizing Hillary. This has nothing to do with Hillary. If you want defend to Paul then defend him, but attacking others is not a defense.

    Your view of the ACLU also demonstrates how many Paul supporters are sure not supporters of liberty. They have far more in common with extremist groups like Stormfront than they do with groups which defend civil liberties.

    As I’ve said many times before, the Ron Paul cult has nothing to do with libertarianism or increasing liberty. It is just another far right group which has much more in common with racists and neo-Nazis than with those of use who desire to reduce the power of government.

  13. 13
    Dave from Princeton says:

    Take the fanatic clueless Borg from the 2004 primaries, add right-wing nut case to it, these creatures are what you end up with. Yech…

    BTW, liked the evolution video clip from today. Won’t poke through the heads of deniers of course but a goodie.

    Hope things are going well with you and your family.


  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:


    Long time no see. Hope things are going well with you too.

    Yes, I’ve noted in the past that the Paul cult is a lot like the other campaign in some ways in terms of attacking blogs which disagree with them. Of course the ties to right wing extremists adds a new dimension. Being somewhat sympathetic to true libertarianism (or at least the libertarianism of 30 years ago when I was more involved with such groups) I also hate to see the libertarian name be debased by this movement.

    Agree that the evolution video won’t change the minds of any creationists. I bet that the only people who even view it already realize that evolution is established science and creationism is nonsense.

  15. 15
    Ron Chusid says:

    To keep Dave’s comment in perspective I should note that I have further cleaned up this thread after he posted. Many of the Paul supporters commenting here expressed support for receiving money from groups like Stormfront (but lacked any rational arguments supporting their position) and one commenter even expressed a rather strong opposition to civil liberties. I also limited the first commenter to his first comment as they went down from there.

    Considering the tactic of the Paul cult to spam the internet, now that they have adopted racism and hatred while showing contempt for defending civil liberties, I will not allow them to use the comments here to promote their anti-freedom beliefs under the guise of the libertarian name. They have plenty of other venues in which to express their beliefs.

  16. 16
    Alexia for Ron Paul says:

    Oh please! Nobody would blink if Obama got money from the Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, La Raza, or any other form of collectivist group.

    You only disagree with promoting racism when it serves your agenda.

    If you think that a huge amount of Ron Pauls money comes from groups like this, then you should consider yourself a conspiracy theorist. For one thing, the number of white supremecists is pretty insignificant compared to the population in general. If it wasn’t for the internet, I’d think they were an urban legend.

    The Democrats would infringe on the free speech rights of the white supremecists, by outlawing hate speech, so it makes sense they’d hang their hats with a guy who believes that the Constitution actually is important even if you disagree with it.

    GWB got money from the same guy. Nobody chattered about it then.

  17. 17
    Ron Chusid says:


    There are a number of incorrect statements in your comment. Paul supporters who spam the blogosphere by making such false claims do not help him.

    “You only disagree with promoting racism when it serves your agenda.”

    Untrue. The tendency of Paul supporters to make such assumptions about anyone who brings up criticism of Paul only causes us to take his supporters less seriously. It also does nothing to defend Paul to claim that others might receive contributions from unsavory groups. Paul’s own actions must be defended. Comparing the NAACP to Stormfront is also quite bizarre.

    “If you think that a huge amount of Ron Pauls money comes from groups like this, then you should consider yourself a conspiracy theorist.”

    First of all, I am writing here about one contribution so once again you discredit yourself when you raise charges of being a conspiracy theorist. Secondly, this contribution is only part of a trend. As other posts on this topic have demonstrated, Paul has a history of actively working to appeal to such groups. Their percentage in the general population is irrelevant if Paul is targeting the extremist right. If these accusations are untrue, then Paul should demonstrate it by returning the contribution.

    “The Democrats would infringe on the free speech rights of the white supremecists, by outlawing hate speech, ”

    Untrue. While you might be able to find exceptions, for the most part Democrats support the First Amendment rights to free speech. The ACLU has often defended the rights of far right groups.

    “so it makes sense they’d hang their hats with a guy who believes that the Constitution actually is important even if you disagree with it.”

    Again untrue. My criticism of Paul has often been based upon incorrect interpretations of the Constitution which actually act to reduce liberty.

    “GWB got money from the same guy.”

    Untrue. Contributions are a matter of public record and there is no record of such a contribution from the same Don Black. If this did occur and people realized it, Bush would have been forced to return the contribution.

    “Nobody chattered about it then.”

    While there were no contributions from Black revealed, there was quite a bit of criticism of Bush when a connection to Black was found after the 2000 election when Black supplied people to intimidate people in Florida working on the recount. If such a tie to Black was known before the election there would have been talk about it. Bush ran claiming to be a “compassionate conservative” and hid his ties to people like Black before the election.

  18. 18
    d.alon says:

    Personally, think Paul’s rationalization for not returning the money is perfectly reasonalble. He asked why he should return the money to someone who would use it for a hateful cause when he could use it for a positive cause. That makes sense to me.

    As a life long Democrat, I like Paul above all the other candidates. He’s the only candidate with a chance who will end the occupations and restore our Constitution and civil liberties. That to me needs to be the first step. Second, the Democrats have ruthlessly betrayed their base since they have taken power and Paul is, in essence, a third party candidate. We need to break this monopoly of a two party system. The is the reason the Democrats believe they can ignore their base to the extent they have, is that they think we have no other choice and therefore will hand them the White House due to even greater disgust for Republicans. I can’t do it when none of the leading Democratic candidates will make the commitments that will counter the current course. Tweaking and fine tuning the corruption is not good enough.

    I do worry about Paul’s reliance on the free market as a solution to all our economic woes, because we’ve already lived through and experience the horrors of unregulated corporate practice. He thinks that private property rights can trump pollution and environmental hazzards, but I think that means that damage will have to be inflicted and caught first before litigation could begin.

  19. 19
    Ron Chusid says:

    D. alon,

    This also breaks down the line as to what is acceptable in politics. No other politician would accept money from such a group. If the concern is what Don Black would do with the money if returned, then it could be donated to charity instead as many have suggested.

    Perhaps Ron Paul could help break down the two party monopoly, but bringing in the types of extremists which are attracted to his campaign is hardly the way to do this.

    Paul is of value with regards to civil liberties with regards to the federal government (as well as opposing the war) but he would not “restore” the Constitution. The Constitution he envisions is quite different from what the framers intended. His disbelief in separation of church and state and his extreme views of states’ rights could lead to considerably more violations of civil liberties on a state level, eliminating the benefits of his views on civil liberties on a national level.

3 Trackbacks

Leave a comment