Ron Paul Watch: Neo-Nazi Leader Don Black Donates to Ron Paul Campaign

16 Comments

• 

  Johnnyb

  October 27, 2007 at 10:39 am

  Ron Paul also has the highest approval of black voters of all Republican nominees. Ron Paul has been endorsed by the Rastafarians because only Ron Paul accepts their right to use marijuana as a religious sacriment.

  I do not understand why people should care who has endorsed Ron Paul, its not like Ron Paul has solicited campaign contributions from anyone, and anyone can contribute to his campaign. It should be noted that Ron Paul leaders everyone running for President for campaign donations from the military, too.

  Please explain why anyone should care if a white supremacist contributes to Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul is not a racist and there is nothing in his voting history that shows any sort of racial bias. Even looking on Stormfront, they are having debates about supporting him even though he is not a white nationalist.

  Think for yourself, and if there is something that you do not like about Ron Paul’s platform then point that out, but continuing these senseless smears on the man is absurd.

• 

  Flap

  October 27, 2007 at 10:43 am

  JB,

  Then, why doesn’t Ron Paul have a news conference and renounce Don Black and Stormfront and return their contributions?

  If he doesn’t want to be associated with them then disavow.

  Remember Reagan did that when the KKK endorsed him for President.

  • 

    Alexia for Ron Paul

    October 27, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    Don Black endorsed Bush in 2004. Bush did not “renounce” him. Does that make Bush a neo-nazi? By your logic, it does.

• 

  John Howard

  October 27, 2007 at 12:30 pm

  Ah, the Anti-Paul crazies are out of the asylum again, confusing the candidate with his supporters. We can count on these tin-foil hat Anti-Paul loony tune winguts to find a conspiracy behind everything Ron Paul does. These are the same neo-confused Warbot wackos who insist that large numbers of Ron Paul supporters = spam. Anti-Paulistas are missing a few cylindars in the old concept engine and should be humored, not scolded. After all, it must be difficult for them to be opposed to liberty, property, and peace. How else do you do that other than lying about racism? It ain’t much, but it’s all they have.

• 

  Tom Wellings

  October 27, 2007 at 1:06 pm

  Why not cover the biggest campaign fraud in history that Hillary is engaged in? Oh that’s right because the goal was to bash Ron Paul. I think Ron Paul has enough of a fight on his hands right now without being branded as a KKK-Neo-nazi-Hitler as the media would [and this blog has already done] brand him even if in front of the media magically tracked down every racist that donated and gave them back their money. Also at least the few racists that donated are legal US citizens that have donated legally under the law – HILLARY CAN’T SAY THAT!

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I

• 

  Gregor Morrill

  October 27, 2007 at 1:15 pm

  I don’t know what the Lone StarTimes has done, but Flapsblog certainly hasn’t made inquiries to the campaign, just written some blog posts.

  In the same vein of your questions to Ron Paul: You have now linked multiple times to a Neo-Nazi site from this blog. Are you a Neo-Nazi?

• 

  FZappa

  October 27, 2007 at 2:10 pm

  The Paul haters want to talk about a $500 donation, but not the trillions of dollars the Federal Reserve steals or the hundreds of billions wasted on Iraq.

  Don Black endorsed Bush in 2004. Is Bush a neo-nazi?

• 

  SJ Reidhead

  October 27, 2007 at 2:48 pm

  I think you are going to find there is even more evidence against Ron Paul before it is over. Over at The Pink Flamingo I’ve been writing about this for several months. The problem is Ron Paul is just the tip of the iceberg. Next month in Phoenix, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is appearing at a fund-raiser for Russell Pearce, a GOP member of the AZ State House, and now a candidate for Congress. The problem with Pearce is the fact that he is a friend of JT Ready, a known member of the neo-Nazi party. Pearce has been photographed at several of Ready’s events, along with misc. neo-Nazis and other lovely white supremacists. They are all ‘tight’ with Randy Childress, who is a mover and a shaker in the AZ anti-immigration scene. Another political associate of Childress & Arpaio is JD Hayworth.

  The other thing I’m waiting for people to finally figure out is the fact that Francis Combs of the Washington Times and his wife are very close friends of Virginia Neo-Nazi leader Bill White.

  You might want to check out some of the work the SPLC is doing on the subject.

  SJ Reidhead
  The Pink Flamingo

• 

  Randy

  October 27, 2007 at 11:01 pm

  Lol, you’re on your own with these Paulites, Flap. I was going to jump in, but they’re less rational than liberals. I’ll give ’em one thing, they have this plan for a day coming up soon (can’t remember the date) to get 100,000 people to all donate $100, which will obviously mean a huge, $10 million donation day! That’s actually really smart… it’s too bad that the sane candidates couldn’t think of this.

• 

  USpace

  October 28, 2007 at 8:05 pm

  Ron Paul has some good ideas, just some that is…
  .
  absurd thought –
  God of the Universe says
  just blame America

  for all the ills of the world
  don’t blame simple dictators

  .
  absurd thought –
  God of the Universe says
  ignore the threat of jihad

  SCREAM that it’s made up
  an excuse for blood for oil
  .

  http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/

  🙂
  .

• 

  Johnnyb

  October 29, 2007 at 4:33 am

  Uspace in your personal life and business do you not take account of your actions? Balance you check book, manage your investment accounts, take inventories, admit where you have been wrong, and try to correct your mistakes by selling loser stocks or discounting your inventory, etc.

  We feel free to criticize government policies, tax rates, programs, and spending, yet no one says that people criticizing domestic policy are un-American. Its only when people criticize our foriegn policy that rational criticism of government becomes Un-American, but like is so frequently the case in domestic policy sometimes it might be rational to take a look at the results of our foriegn policy, regardless of whether they are a Republican or a Democrat.

  Before 9/11 many Americans were sick of our foriegn policy. Bush was talking about how the Cold War was over and there was no longer a need to keep American bases around the World. Republicans were united against Clinton’s foriegn policy accusing him a wagging the dog with his adventure in the Balkins, Somalia or his dumbass middle East Peace summit. Republicans stated that we should only go to war as a matter of national security. Were Republicans being Un-American before 9/11?

  Before 9/11 we were sick of nation building, sick of subsidizing European Socialism by providing for their national defense by default by allowing them to slack off of their NATO obligations, but for some reason the collective trauma of 9/11 changed everything. 9/11 pissed us off and we wanted blood, so we went on the war path but who was there to attack? After all we had been attacked by terrorists who were not the operatives of any nation and killed themselves before we could get our revenge, so we found that Afghanistan was hiding Bin Laden and refused to give him up so we kicked their ass, but that was too easy and it sparked an idea in our collective mind.

  “We can go around the World and kick every dictator in the ass, give the oppressed people of the World freedom and free markets and everyone will be the better for it.”

  Bush told us that Saddam was acting like a Jackass and for just $50 Billion bucks we could kick his ass and give freedom and democracy to all this poor damned Iraqis, they will love us for it and the oil will pay for all of it. 4 years, $600 Billion dollars and 4,000 American lives later many of us who have been cheerleading this noble effort are now questioning the wisdom of it, but now we are Un-American?

  Could the terrorists have destroyed $600 billion of our wealth killed 4,000 of our best citizens and caused 10s of thousands of other to lose their limbs, their eyesight or go through the rest of their lives as burn victims unless we went over there? What are we getting for our sacrifice? Are these Un-American questions to be asking?

  Still 6 years after 9/11, the underlying question remains, “Why in the hell did they attack us any way?” Bush told us they hate us for our freedoms, and in the aftermath of 9/11 we all bought that, even though it sounded like bullshit at the time. Now that we have had time to cool off, Ron Paul tells us the true reason that we were attacked on 9/11, yet all these years later you accuse him of blaming America first? As though these terrorists just came out of nowhere and killed themselves to attack us because they hate our freedoms and have no other motivation.

  Truth is Ron Paul is telling the truth, unlike any other politician that I can remember, he is telling the whole truth to the American people and not just spouting a bunch of crap that Americans want to hear. Just like us common people have to take account for our own actions, balance our checkbooks, take our losses on bad investments Americans have got to take an honest assessment of our government and quite pretending that our government is infalible as the Pope. Our Government makes mistakes and its up to we the people to acknowledge those mistakes to force the government to change. Doing this makes us good Americans, not Un-Americans.

• 

  PAFreedom

  November 1, 2007 at 5:59 pm

  Dr. Ron Paul attracts an extremely diverse group of people, kind of the opposite of a white-supremacist only crowd. This is because there is finally a candidate that actually wants to provide true governmental accountability and will follow the oath of office.

  There are liberals, conservatives, black, white, Republican, Democrat, third party, etc. Of course there will be an unsavory element in the midst of people from across America.
  However, to suggest in any way that it means Dr. Ron Paul supports the views of all supporters is beyond stupid in so many ways.

  For one, he has publicly decried racism. Secondly, he could not support the views of all supporters as they are so diverse they would at times oppose each other. Paul sticks with freedom and it would be nice if this site would as well.

• 

  Flap

  November 1, 2007 at 6:03 pm

  Sorry Pal,

  But Ron Paul has not repudiated Don Black, David Duke or any of the White Supremacist folks at stormfront.org.

  Why not?

• 

  jim

  November 13, 2007 at 3:04 am

  What part of free speech dont you want? Should Ron Paul “renounce” the military, with
  him being their favorite canidate? How about the Jews for Ron Paul, should he distance
  himself from them to. Maybe the black conserative donations also? Maybe Ron Paul has
  a diverse base of support because, he believes in freedom & liberty for all. Is that
  to much for you to handle? Raise some special interest money, their are plenty of
  other canditates, & they will take it.

• 

  Flap

  November 13, 2007 at 7:54 am

  What don’t you understand?

  You equate the military with Neo-Nazi white supremacists?

  It is well known that Ron Paul has a “JEW” problem.

• Pingback:

  November 13, 2007 at 4:35 pm

  Fun facts about Ron Paul - Political Forum - US & World Political Discussion Forums