Alex Blaze

White supremacists for Ron Paul

Filed By Alex Blaze | November 12, 2007 4:31 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: endorsed candidates, Pat Robertson, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, white supremacy

Bil and I joke all the time on this site about the Ron Paul supporters. He's polling at around 6% nationwide among Republicans, and yet if we say anything about him on this site his supporters come out of the woodwork, most of whom have never commented before, and set us straight on the subject.

Well, here we go again. Ron Paul's gotten some interesting endorsements lately, definitely not the kind he wants, I'm sure:

Stormfront.org, a white supremacy web site, as well as others, such as WhiteWorldNews.com, have actively supported Paul's bid for the presidency, including directing donors to his campaign. Stormfront has also endorsed Paul for president.

"Once in a great while a presidential candidate is presented to us. A candidate who not only speaks to us, but for us...I am supporting Ron Paul in his run for the presidency," the Stormfront endorsement says. The endorsement praises Paul's plans to reduce taxes, close the borders and eliminate trade deals, such as NAFTA.

"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you are a white nationalist," the endorsement continues. "Put your differences with one and other aside and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man. Look at the issues. Look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul 2008."

[...]

On Oct. 4 Will Williams, a former leader of the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group, posted on the neo-Nazi Vanguard News Network that white supremacy supporters should support Paul for president.

"Till then I recommend folks get involved in the Ron Paul 'revolution' and work with political activists in your communities who are attracted to his anti-globalist message," Williams wrote. "Be disciplined. Blend in; find common ground with them and artfully radicalize those who are receptive and avoid those who are not. ... Most of you would be surprised at how many good people can be exposed to a, let's say, 'pro-majority' message among the remarkable groundswell of fed-up, mostly white Ron Paul supporters -- many, early on, from the 9/11 truth movement. They are finding their backbones as they are exposed to more and more hidden truths, especially about the hidden hand of Jewry behind every foul venture."

Gee, isn't that a shining endorsement?

The Paul campaign is saying that they don't know why these people are supporting him and that they don't really care since they're going to use the money to support Paul's completely non-racist campaign (except for some of his explicitly racist past statements, of course). But the real question isn't what the money's going to be used for, but the reason that these people would donate it to Paul in the first place. I don't see white supremacists lining up to donate to Dennis Kucinich.

I wonder how this is going to get played out in the larger media, if it will at all. But something tells me that there won't be the same "What a great endorsement! This will help him among Values Voters!" pablum that was given to Giuliani when he got Pat Robertson's endorsement.

(Via Pam)


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Guilt by association is Soviet enough -- but guilt by *unsought* association? Nice.

And how do you explain Paul polling higher among African-Americans than any other Republican?

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-polling-african-americans.html

Yes, because that's what the Soviets were known for, supporting gay rights and blogging.

Check out the links, yo. He's pretty unrepentent about his past racist and anti-semitic statements.

So who do you think is going to be hurt the most? Guiliani by Pat Robertson's endorsement or Ron Paul by the white supremacists? I'm almost wondering if anymore these whacked out fringe groups aren't almost endorsing folks that they want to knock out of the race...

Notice it took 40 minutes before the first Ron Paul supporter came out of the woodwork. LOL I really thought they'd be faster...

Those racist comments were not written by Ron Paul, Alex, they were written by a staffer 15 years ago who was immediately fired.

Remember: Google is your friend.

If you want to see the racial edges of America soften to the point of melting, vote for Ron Paul, who sees people as individuals who retain their inalienable rights as individuals.

If you want to see the racial edges of America continue to harden, elect Hillary, Obama, Rudy, etc., who exacerbate America's racial tensions under the government's guise of ameliorating them.

Bill Browning --

What is this "woodwork" you speak of, and why is it a bad thing to offer counterpoints on a weblog?

Sounds like you're making fun of democracy and debate in action.

Ron Paul 08

No, I'm laughing that someone who's not a regular user of the site and can't spell my name has popped up after 40 minutes to defend Ron Paul. As Alex explained in his opening paragraph, this happens every time we post about him. It's rather amusing. I never said you couldn't "offer counterpoints" and I'm surely not including democracy or "debate in action" as even part of my thought process. Instead, I'm sharing a long-standing joke with Alex. Stick around. You'll get the jokes then (and you'll always be first with the Ron Paul comments!).

Ron Paul is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-racial-profiling and pro-constitution.

Who's the Nazi?

"pro-constitution"? That doesn't even make sense!

i find it funny that the only thing anybody can find wrong with Dr Ron Paul is some of his supporters.
How many Pedifiles supported the Clinton's?

Why not write something on his political position on say the Iraq war? or the economy?

Being a frequent poster here and a supporter of Dr. Paul's I find it most interesting that historically little is posted here regarding his position on anything. It's sad but that is the usual fair liberals have to offer.

Oh well i should be use to that i suppose.


Susan Robins

Careful there the Paulies will get ya oh btw Rep. Paul is a RHINO ie Republican in name only and can fight a pretty nasty campagin when hes running for Congress.Yes I was a southen Repblican before and after I became trans and bi and before the lastest batch of former Dixiecrates became Republicans.Im a Moderate and those folks just hate voters like me.On some issues I make Neocons look like liberals and on others I make liberals look like Neocons.But folks get out and vote! Dont stay home and complain about who the rest of us vote for or against this next election!

love ya
Cathy

Ah yes, "Bil," I'm sure no one ever inexplicably misspells your name with two L's.

Sorry, I generally only show up for Ron Paul posts. If the rest of the blog is as well-researched as this post, you'll have to forgive me if I don't stick around to figure out your and Alex's lil' inside jokes.

And Alex-- pro-constitution means you have high regard for the constitution. Mitt Romney, for example, doesn't cut it, since he thinks you ask your lawyers if you can go to war instead of reading Article I, Section 8.

Laters.

FZ~ No, that still doesn't make sense. Two people could be reading the same passage in the Constitution and come to different conclusions as to what it means based on different experiences and stances.

The "pro constitution" stance gets thrown around by whoever is in a position of power and says that their interpretation will stick because if you don't like it, well tough! For me, being queer is a direct refutation of that mentality, the idea that one text can be written and interpreted the same way by everyone. I've lived knowing that others will read their norms and experiences onto me because being in a position of power along an axis of identity means that you think that your experiences are universal and you don't have to question them. Just like Ron Paul thinks that his interpretation of the Constitution is universal based on the fact that he sees the context in which he reads it as universal.

Or maybe Cathy's right, and he just says that because he's pandering to whomever will listen to him. But I still think that's better than Bush, who panders in ways that can't be dealt with logically. He's a lot better show-person, making him a lot more... conniving.

And wait, where's the factual error in this post? You said it's bad research.... I'm guessing you're not sticking around because LGBTQ issues don't interest you and you just set yourself up to get Google alerts so you could support Ron Paul all over the internet all day. Am I right?

I'll give you a fair response because you're actually trying to engage, Sue. This isn't the worst that I could find on him. It's not my intent just to tear down any candidate (except for Giuliani).

Ron Paul is against every major gay rights bill that is even being discussed right now. He supports discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military, opposes employment protections, and is against relationship recognition.

On the economy, he's a libertarian, so he's still stuck in the 1700's in terms of economic thought. Support the rich, maybe things will trickle down if I throw some pennies at my gardener eliminate anything resembling social welfare and adopt a pseudo-populist stance against taxes. I mean, his economic theory would put us right back in the industrial era, people living in crowded hovels, workers losing limbs and life with no recourse, and lakes so filled with pollution they catch fire. His form of pure capitalism, generally advocated by wealthy white men (but definitely not always) seems to mostly (but again, def not always) benefit those same wealthy white men. What a surprise.

He opposes the separation of Church and State and wants school prayer (yes, where the schools force Jewish kids to pray to Jesus). Everything he says about civil liberties is in the "Founding Fathers meant this" and "The Constitution strictly says that" vein, which is hilarious because he apparently feels that the marketplace of ideas applies to everything except to those texts to which he has the best interpretation. I guess he thinks he's a mind-reader or some sort of God that his abstract meanderings around such texts should be taken as more valid than others', and that they can't be interpreted by different cultures.

His international isolationism is downright frightening in this highly globalized economy and with America's large civil rights abuses. He opposes the ICC, not for the same reason as GWB, but it'll have the same effects as GWB's opposition in the end. He should get praise on opposing the Iraq War.

He's anti-choice, pro school vouchers, pro-death penalty, against health care, and even proposed legislation to overturn the Lawrence decision, which would have, you know, made it illegal for me and other consenting adults to have sex.

So yeah, I disagree with a lot of his positions. But he'd definitely be better than Bush!

Hi Alex no he would not hes a rampant oppertunist who says what he needs to get votes.Id gag and vote for Hillary beofre I would vote for Mr Paul!

Yes now remember go vote!

Alex Remember im the admitted Republican here and I know these folks a tad better than many of you.Jr may have his faults but like I said if some how Congressman Paul got the nomination id gag and vote for Hillary!Btw in some circles that makes me quardruple damned im Bi im Trans im pagan and im Republaicn woot going for a record here I think!
love ya
Cathy

I think Ales you should keep in mind the current economy has the dollar loosing some 60% of it's value since 2000. Perhaps it's time to bring adopt something a little different before all your dollars are worthless thanks to economic policy that spans both republican and democrat administrations going back to FDR.

Ales i really don't care about Dr Paul's position on Gay Rights It makes no difference in my daily life and Never has. I am a person of transgender history and no longer TG but legally female all the way back to the birth certificate. Gay rights are a non issue with me as Transgender rights are with a number of regulars here. in short Dr Paul's position on Gay Rights is not my problem. The War and the Economy are my problem Big Time.

as to his position on free trade...
Considering all the unsafe junk coming from China and the amount of dollars China has, maybe it's time to resume making things here. Maybe it is time to allow Americans to compete for jobs that some people say we won't do. The fact for a fair wage we will do those jobs.

actually i think you are wrong and he is against the death penalty . I know i am and i am also against abortion both go hand in hand.


Alex he would be better then Clinton he would end the war. and stop the inflation this country has had for the last 7 or so years.

Do you really think the cost of Oil is because of some shortage?
You better look again because the cost of oil is remained constant or dropped in Europe.


Susan Robins

I'm not expecting you to care about gay rights issues personally. I'd hope that you'd care anyway in the same way that I care about transgender issues even though they may not affect me personally, but I'm not going to impose that on you. You asked what was wrong with him besides these people endorsing him, and I gave you a few reasons that I oppose him.

I don't think he's in favor of cutting off trade w/ China... I thought he was all "free trade".

Yeah, the current econ isn't doing well. I did concede that Paul is better than Bush!

He said that he was against the fed. death penalty but in favor of it on the state level on Tavis Smiley's radio show. I can't cite that here, since I heard it on the radio.

One other comment....

You know it's funny..
I lived in Texas Dr. Paul had his district gerrymandered to a black and hispanic majority district. You know they have reelected him over democratic candidates because the guy is real he is not some fake prancing around like Barny Frank or Hillery Clinton.

If more people here did their homework they might find Dr Paul to be a viable candidate. Folks the world doesn't revolve around Gay Rights. You will find that out soon enough. Then you will wish you had someone with his pragmatism.

Take care
Susan Robins

As I said earlier Sue hes a RHINO and says what he can to get those votes.

Loves ya
Cathy


Alex
I agree with Dr Paul on the Federal death penalty. The states have more rights then most people think according to The Constitution.
Actually he is in favor of Fair Trade not Free trade. there is a rather large difference, we have been living in a free trade world which is destroying the middle class in this country. This is a FAR Larger issue then Gay Rights, this is an issue of survival of this nation as a first world nation.

Dr Paul is a tridiagonal republican or in modern terms a libertarian. These days the Clinton's and the Bushes are both on the same side of the fence.
Just see who is engineering Hillery's campaign Roger Ails, the man who build the modern republican party and brought Y'all Rush Limbaugh.

Take care
Susan Robins


Ron Paul is the Kucinich of the GOP. 10% really wonderful, imaginative ideas, 30% raving lunacy.

Ah yes, "Bil," I'm sure no one ever inexplicably misspells your name with two L's.

Sorry, I generally only show up for Ron Paul posts. If the rest of the blog is as well-researched as this post, you'll have to forgive me if I don't stick around to figure out your and Alex's lil' inside jokes.

You're right. People do misspell my name. Usually they're not regular readers. :)

And, as you say, you show up for Ron Paul posts. That would "coming out of the woodwork." As for sticking around for our "lil' inside jokes," just read Alex's first paragraph and you'll be able to figure it out! No sticking around required!

Bil and I joke all the time on this site about the Ron Paul supporters He's polling at around 6% nationwide among Republicans, and yet if we say anything about him on this site his supporters come out of the woodwork, most of whom have never commented before, and set us straight on the subject.

I'd say you fit the description perfectly, eh?

All you have to do is visit http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm to find out what he stands for. From what I can tell, when it comes to social issues he supports things that libertarian ideals simply do not support and of that I've had enough.

Supports a pro-christian agenda and threatens that Christians and "Christmas" is under attack. If Christians are the majority in the US it only makes sense that 1. He's full of crap. 2. Christians are doing it to themselves and 3. He isn't all too educated on who forced religion out of "schools" (The religious leaders themselves because they couldn't get schools to teach recipe of religion. Of course the constitution later put an end to it but long after the religious leaders did anyway.) or the views of each of the founders, let alone what a deist even was. (I presume it's because most people think that when someone says they believe in a "god" that people automatically assume it means they're a "Christian" when many of them are quoted as being very critical of Christianity.) Alas, libertarians aren't supportive of anything that holds a particular religion up as superior.

Anti-Abortion (libertarians do not support making choices on abortion for women by the government). Later Paul stated that the government shouldn't be making personal decisions for us. Flippity Floppity.

Voted to ban gay adoptions (libertarians do not support laws that ban gays and lesbians from marriage, adoption, etc.) See above comment.

Thinks DOMA is perfectly fine. (Yep, no "government intervention" here going on, is there?)

Voted to protect the pledge (I'm sure to protect the "god" in it that was inserted simply as protectionistic move against those dreaded communist *gasp* atheists *bigger gasp*)

Authorizes tax credits for christian schools (again, very anti-libertarian ideal of a strict separation of church and state)

Abolish all welfare (I do hope he plans to quadruple law enforcement and the judicial system if he thinks this will actually work. Crime will go through the roof, guaranteed.)

I'm not saying I disagree with everything he says but someone who flip flops this much and would easily have the religious reich in their pocket for election to the supreme court furthering their superiority complex is enough to make me discount him. Not that our options are too perfect at this point but I'd much rather vote for someone I know would guarantee a vote for a equal-rights champion to the supreme court over an authoritarian theocrat.

I find the apologistic nature of Ronbots rather offensive. I would have assumed that people calling themselves libertarians would be a lot more objective in nature but apparently I was dead wrong.

If more people here did their homework they might find Dr Paul to be a viable candidate. Folks the world doesn't revolve around Gay Rights. You will find that out soon enough. Then you will wish you had someone with his pragmatism.

Sue...would you have asked for the Jewish people to vote for Hitler given the chance because "everything else Hitler stood for was good...except for that one thing"? Give me a break. You can't actually ask people to vote for someone who would vote in judges who would happily send them up the river without a second thought. A few of us might internalize our closeted fears but we're not that self-deprecating. I realize it's difficult for people to step outside of their shoes and empathize with others but asking GLBT people to put their own self-worth aside "just this once" is deplorable and you telling us in the roundabout way that our rights "just aren't all that important" sure isn't the way to go about getting people to join the Ronpaulican club.

Given the Choices we have for President L, I can't with clear conscience vote for anybody else.

I am more worried about having an economy, getting the hell out of the middle east and someone who would enforce Fair trade not fee trade that brings a flood of useless Chinese made products that half the time are dangerous. Lastly Someone who truly believes in homeland security and would lock up both borders and stop the flood of illegal aliens into this country.

I don't see Any Democrats who support even half of these issues.

Have a nice day.

Susan Robins

Well I see this post is alive and well. Bil I know all about the name misspelling smiles my legal and male name only has like 5 ways to spell it! But no matter how you stack ot Ron Paul shouldnt even be in congress let alone running for President btw did you all know he was also running for reelction for his seat in congress and guess which he pays more attention to.

Cathy

I agree with Dr Paul on the Federal death penalty. The states have more rights then most people think according to The Constitution.

That's my central problem with his civil liberties justifications. They're basically "I think the Constitution's writers meant this, so that's the way it is, bitches."

It's not a very persuasive argument, but it has a whole lot of cultural knowledge/power behind it.

And whether it's the states or the fed gov't that flip the switch on someone, that person is just as dead.

Alex i can think of several people who have that same attitude regarding the Constitution on any front. Bill Clinton for instance justifying NAFTA which has dealt a severe blow to the middle class in this country. Everybody likes to cherry pick the Constitution. Look what GW Bush has done to the Constitution not to mention what is currently in store for the near future.

One more thing Alex Nobody i know of can justify no death penalty and abortion in the same breath.
That child has every right to live yet we don't let the child have due process Do We Alex?

everyone who is against the death penalty and Pro-Choice should do a reality check. Nearly every democrat i know refuses to acknowledge the rights of the unborne.

At least someone who goes up for the death penalty has the right to due process.

Take care
Susan Robins


Mary Marquist | November 14, 2007 2:01 AM

Ron Paul isn't against gay marriage, he just thinks marriage is primarily a religious act, best left to churches, and that the government should get it's nose out of marriage altogether. I'm on his side on this one. For the record, I'm a lesbian and a Ron Paul supporter. I would absolutely vote for Paul and would not feel I'm throwing my vote away. If any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, was EVEN REMOTELY as reasonable, as anti-big government and as pro-civil liberty as Ron Paul is, believe me, I'd vote for that person. But because there isn't, my vote for Ron Paul is not waisted.

Well put Mary,
I have always found anybody who would say about any candidate that a person would be throwing away their vote on that candidate usually doesn't throw much weight behind their own principals. They are more interested in being seen supporting a popular candidate then taking their beliefs out of the closet and voting for someone who matches those beliefs.

Look at all the Anti-War people who will be voting for Hillery Clinton who is pro Iraq war.

Take Care
Susan Robins

Just a bit of advise to every one.You need to find out when your primary date is and if you plan on supporting somebody from a party you normaly dont vote for make sure your state allows cross party voting and if your and independent make sure you can vote.As now is the time to do this so you wont get a nasty surprise come election day!