Mel Gibson’s Father Endorses Ron Paul

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cphTr8W9OnA]

When Ron Paul first entered the race I saw this as beneficial. With the Republicans becoming increasingly dominated by neocons and religious fundamentalists, it would be beneficial to see signs of life among the libertarian faction of the party. Even though few Republicans might have understood, I was happy to see Paul try to bring some signs of reality to the Republican debates regarding Iraq.

Unfortunately as the race has gone on and more has come out on Paul’s views it has become clear that, despite being right on Iraq, Paul is far more a social conservative than a libertarian. Paul has become the candidate of right wing extremism as opposed to libertarianism, receiving the endorsement of groups such as Stormfront.

The Paul campaign has turned from a source of hope of presenting libertarian ideas to a comic act where you never know what absurdity will come next. Paul has received the endorsement of Hutton Gibson, best known as a Holocaust denier and father of Mel Gibson (video above).

As with many of the events of this campaign, this might say more about the cult backing Paul than Ron Paul himself. While direct connections have been found between Paul and some of the extremists who support him, I am unaware of any connection between Paul and Gibson. The question here is why supporters of Ron Paul would post this endorsement and see it as something positive.

27 Comments

  1. 1
    joshie says:

    We come from all walks of life. I am a liberal punk who grew up fighting nazi skins in Seattle. Paul is antifascist, that is all that matters to me. I will put up with his social conservatism just to help end the tyranny developing in ur country. Peace.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    “I will put up with his social conservatism just to help end the tyranny developing in ur country.”

    Except that social conservativism represents the worst of the “tyranny” developing in this country in recent years.

  3. 3
    Mark Gibb says:

    You are making a logical error. You assume that if less-than-savory characters endorse the campaign, then there must be something wrong with the campaign.

    I support Ron Paul because his philosophy is one of peace and liberty for all. This hasn’t changed in 30 years.

    Every campaign has supporters that they wish they didn’t have. We give these bad supporters too much credit by even noticing them. I think they need to be ignored like the irrelavent people they are.

  4. 4
    Johnnyb says:

    Question is “Why do otherwise intelligent people fall for this bullshit propaganda?”

    Ron Paul is not a racist or a truther. He is not really socially conservative either, really how can someone call the guy conservative when he wants to legalize marijuana?

    Yes, he is against abortion, but so what? If you believe that life begins at conception then you have to be against abortion or you are condoning murder.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    “You are making a logical error. You assume that if less-than-savory characters endorse the campaign, then there must be something wrong with the campaign.

    Not at all, if you read what I’ve written on Paul. I have separated out the question of supporters versus the candidate. However I’ve also noted cases where Paul has been soliciting the support of “unsavory characters,” which would suggest there is something wrong with the campaign. There’s also a reason why neo-Nazis see Paul as their candidate as they realize that Paul’s philosophy is not really one of liberty.

    Besides Paul’s solicitation of support from far right extremist groups, there’s also the issue of the recent exposure of a donation from the founder of Stormfront. Paul’s failure to return that donation negates all such claims trying to separate Paul form groups which endorse him. As long as he solicits and takes their money, appears on their talk shows, and uses their language in his writings Paul’s connection to right wing extremist groups cannot be written off as supporters beyond his control.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    “He is not really socially conservative either, really how can someone call the guy conservative when he wants to legalize marijuana?”

    Paul does deserve credit for supporting an end to the drug war along with his opposition to the Iraq War. Even with this exception he is a social conservative. Besides his opposition to abortion rights he has taken the conservative line in opposing gay marriage and in his statements opposing the principle of separation of church and state.

    “If you believe that life begins at conception then you have to be against abortion or you are condoning murder.”

    If you are a libertarian you understand that the life of a fetus is not the same as the life of a baby. You understand the rights of a woman to control her own body. You understand the right of individuals to make their own decision, as opposed to leaving this decision up to the government.

    Paul has also ignored his own principles of supporting state’s rights in supporting the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions. His social conservativism trumps his views on both libertarianism and state’s rights.

  7. 7
    Mark Gibb says:

    Mr. Chusid,

    I am not aware of Dr. Paul “soliciting” the support of unsavory characters. If you have time, could you be so kind as to elucidate that a bit for me?

    And, we may have to agree to disagree on the meaning of “liberty”, but to say that “Paul’s philosophy is not really one of liberty” boggles my mind.

    Sincerely,

    Mark

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Mark,

    See my other posts on Paul regarding connections between Paul and these groups. I have also discussed how the election of Paul would likely lead to less as opposed to more liberty in previous posts.

  9. 9
    Jack Sanderson says:

    Sure, that staffer made a mistake but the fact is that everyone who wants free speech is going to vote for Paul.

    Heck, Ron Paul is the only candidate saying that pornography on the Internet must remain free to view without a credit card (which identifies the viewer).

    I don’t see that as too “socially conservative”.

    In fact, a lot of us Republicans want to see Paul’s candidacy at least force a President Giuliani to reject religious social conservatives as cabinet members and hire libertarians instead. Paul’s candidacy could force Giuliani to make a major libertarian Republican his VP choice.

    The Republicans are siding with the Democrats on major Internet regulations like IMBRA, which got passed and temporarily upheld, and COPA, which is restrained only because the porn industry has more money for lawyers than the dating industry (IMBRA regulates international dating sites by forcing Americans to have background checks to use them).

    So everyone in their right mind, whether he is a white supremacist or liberal college hippy is going to support the logical candidate in the primaries.

  10. 10
    John P Slevin says:

    Mr. Chusid,

    You have not answered the question posed by Mark: “I am not aware of Dr. Paul “soliciting” the support of unsavory characters. If you have time, could you be so kind as to elucidate that a bit for me?”

    Your previous posts have provided no clue as to why you claim the Ron Paul campaign actively solicits support from unsavory types.

    What is your point?

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    My previous posts most certainly have addressed this issue.

  12. 12
    Josyf says:

    Please support Ron Paul this November 5th. On that day
    thousands will flock to Ron Paul’s official website and
    contribute $100. It is hoped to register 100,000 supporters to raise $10,000,000 in one day.

    If you support Ron Paul then go to this website and register. Don’t just talk the talk…WALK THE WALK!

    http://thisnovember5th.com

    vote for Dr. Paul at: http://ourvote.us/

    In this way, we can welcome President-Elect Ron Paul on November 5th 2008!

  13. 13
    jmklein says:

    Paul will abolish the War on Drugs, that so social conservative and totally not libertarian. He also believes that unborn children are “alive” and that human entities that are “alive” have the minimal “liberty” of remaining “alive”. That is also a very not libertarian way to look at it.

  14. 14
    jason says:

    I have to say people are just not going to fall for this kind of junk. you cant attack ron paul based on his view so you attack ron paul by way of SOME of his supporters. You are trying to insinuate that his message attracts racists, extremists, and all other kinds of political boogie men. Well it just isnt going to work. Paul supporters are from “all walks of life.” we are all different types of people some of us KNOW our government is too big via spending and too big via control over our personal lives and we support him. Some of us want out of Iraq now. we all have different reasons to support him. To try and discredit him like this is just a joke.

  15. 15
    Ron Chusid says:

    “I have to say people are just not going to fall for this kind of junk. you cant attack ron paul based on his view so you attack ron paul by way of SOME of his supporters.”

    Nonsense. First of all, this is just one post. Many of my posts relate to his views. This is just a BS tactic Paul supporters use to try to discredit any coverage of the campaign–and a major reason why Paul supporters are antagonizing most bloggers, leading to more negative coverage.

    This criticism is not just about supporters–it is about the type of supporters which Paul cultivates. It is also significant that a social conservative like Paul (despite varying on some positions) is the candidate most likely lead to success for the agenda of the extremist right.

    If Paul wants to stop this criticism, he must stop soliciting this type of support, and must return the donations of people like the founder of Stormfront.

  16. 16
    Brad says:

    What an idiot you are!

    Typical political correct propaganda and soviet-style guilt by association….

    PS – who cares if Hutton has different views on the holocaust – this is a free country right? Or are you suggesting that this is a “thought crime” that you wish to control/suppress.

    Communist…

  17. 17
    Brad says:

    PS – the defense of free speech is not intended for mild or politically correct speech…..it is to protect those that go against the dominate politics and culture.

    To refuse money from citizens expressing their free speech (no matter how offensive) is to deny free speech itself.

  18. 18
    Ron Chusid says:

    Brad,

    You provide a perfect example of why Paul supporters have such a poor reputation.

    “soviet-style guilt by association”

    I’ve already noted several times how your clams of guilt by association are untrue. You prefer to repeat such bullshit as opposed to owning up to the real issues.

    “who cares if Hutton has different views on the holocaust ”
    Any decent person would object to the spread of such pro-Nazi propaganda.

    “Or are you suggesting that this is a “thought crime” that you wish to control/suppress.”
    No, I said nothing about a thought crime or suppressing speech. However I have the right–which people like you appear to ignore–to respond to people like you who support hatred and bigotry.

    “the defense of free speech is not intended for mild or politically correct speech…..it is to protect those that go against the dominate politics and culture.”
    If you actually read what is at this site, you would see that I’m a defender of free speech. I’m not so sure about people like you who respond with such personal attacks to anyone who disagrees with you.

    “Communist…”
    Actually I’m a capitalist. But then, you don’t care as a Nazi-apologist like you does not care about letting the truth get in the way of your tactics.

    “To refuse money from citizens expressing their free speech (no matter how offensive) is to deny free speech itself.”
    Untrue. It is customary for politicians to refuse contributions from groups such as Stormfront. This has absolutely nothing to do with restricting their speech.

  19. 19
    Mothermaven says:

    I like Ron Paul’s stance on the Iraq War, Interventionism, and his opposition to the War on Drugs. It almost made me consider voting Republican for the first time in 24 years of voting. I am a liberal independent with a strong social libertarian streak. Government does have a role in the boardroom, but not our bedrooms.

    As a woman, I cannot vote for Ron Paul because he does not believe that women have the right to privacy and personal sovereignty over her body, life, and reproduction. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and thus would overturn the privacy rights created by Griswald v. Connecticut that overturned the criminalization of the sale contraceptives to married couples.

    I also do not agree with him that the health care crisis can be solved by free markets under the dubious banner of health freedom. His plan would allow health providers to freely offer health care to the highest bidder and offer no protections to consumers — leaving them to determine safety claims by themselves.

    He also wants to erode what little consumer/worker protection provided by the FDA, EPA, FAA, OSHA. While I will agree that these agencies are broken and have been taken over by industries who are being regulated, I don’t think de-funding and disbanding these agencies will make us safer. We often forget the reason why these agencies were needed in the first place. Workplaces were dangerous, all sorts of unsubstantiated claims were made about elixirs that were harmful, and rancid meat and bad goods were being sold. People wanted tax dollars for a central place to regulate safety for a reason — corporations didn’t care about our safety.

    In general, economic libertarianism is very delusional. It makes an assumption that corporations can be trusted to act responsibly and in the best interests of consumers and our country. There is an extensive history of corporations acting badly when left alone. Markets break when they are not regulated because actors will take advantage to get the optimal profit including doing things that are counter to the interests of the US economy.

    Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist, but claims that the Second Amendment grants individuals the unregulated right to bear arms. That makes me question how much of a constitutionalist he is. Like many Guns rights groups they choose to ignore the phrase “well-regulated militia”. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Second Amendment to grant such individual rights to bear arms. He wants to overturn sensible gun regulation, which is simply irrational and counter to public safety.

  20. 20
    Darel99 says:

    No real news here just keep on moving!

  21. 21
    Ron Chusid says:

    Mothermaven,

    “As a woman, I cannot vote for Ron Paul because he does not believe that women have the right to privacy and personal sovereignty over her body, life, and reproduction.”

    Understand completely. Considering that one more vote on the Supreme Court might make the difference between whether abortion is legal nation wide or is outlawed in several states, the election of Paul could have very adverse effects on the freedom of many people. In addition, Paul accepts the belief of the religious right in rejecting separation of church and state, which could result in even further restriction in personal liberties.

    “Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist, but claims that the Second Amendment grants individuals the unregulated right to bear arms.”

    Paul is a Constitutionalist when it suits his views. In the case of the Second Amendment there is ambiguity and he chooses to interpret it in a manner consistent with his personal views. In this case he takes a broad view of the amendment, extending it to grant freedoms beyond the strict letter. I might respect this more if in other areas he didn’t take the opposite approach. For example, as I noted above, Paul ignores the First Amendment’s provisions which were intended to guarantee separation of church and state, as well as the secular nature of the Constitution prior to the addition of the Bill of Rights. He also ignores the extension of liberties on a national level to state governments under the 14the Amendment. This is of concern because this could allow conservatives in areas such as the south to impose their views on others as a matter of states rights. Also note how Paul ignores his own position on state’s rights to support a federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions. Ultimately his social conservativism wins out over libertarian principles.

  22. 22
    Delphi Programmer says:

    Ron Paul was one of the few Congressmen who voted no to IMBRA, a draconian law that puts unheard of restrictions on how we can use certain types of Personals Ad columns to meet people, calling them “marriage brokers”. This law sets a new and dangerous precedent of government control over the personal lives of individuals. We need more people with backbone and sanity, like Ron Paul, to stand up against Orwellian laws like these, and against so-called “conservatives” who are too weak-willed to stand up and defend our freedom here at home.

  23. 23
    Ron Chusid says:

    Out of all the issues the one issue you are most interested in relates to mail order brides?

  24. 24
    Delphi Programmer says:

    No. it relates to freedom. There is no such thing as a “mail order bride”. Do you want Big Brother Government telling you how to conduct your social life?

    Does the Constitution mean anything to anyone anymore?

  25. 25
    Ron Chusid says:

    No, I don’t want government telling anyone how to conduct their social life. This includes Ron Paul who ignores the Constitution with regards to separation of church and state and who imposes his religious views on others. Despite his rhetoric, the Constitution doesn’t mean much to Paul other than something to hide behind and ignore when he disagrees with it.

    I’m afraid that there is a certain irony in a Paul supporter picking this single issue considering the reputation of Paul supporters as being nerds who spend their days on a computer in their mother’s basement and are unable to get a date.

  26. 26
    Delphi Programmer says:

    I will ignore that last insulting remark.

    I will admit that I don’t know a lot about Paul, other than the few things I’ve heard on various blogs. And I’ll be the first to admit I disagree with him on a number of issues. I disagree with his stance on the Iraq war, for example. But what other choices do we have? Guiliani? John McCain? And on the Democrat side: Hillary? There isn’t a lot to choose from this election cycle.

    I followed the links from Online Dating Rights, which lead me to Ron Paul sites. That is why I brought up the issue. And no, I’m not a nerd who can’t get a date sitting in my mother’s basement. I’m a successful professional who believes in free speech, freedom of association and a person’s right to privacy in their social life.

  27. 27
    Ron Chusid says:

    The comment was not intended to be personally insulting, but right or wrong, this is the reputation that Paul’s supporters have. Perhaps you don’t realize that as it appears that you might not have much exposure to Paul and his on line supporters.

    Given the reputation that Paul supporters have, hopefully you can see that a comment which stresses the single issue you did appears to play into that reputation.

3 Trackbacks

Leave a comment