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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dave

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.

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.)

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.

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.