It has come to my attention that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has accepted multiple donations in the thousands of dollars from www.stormfront.org a White Supremacists web site devoted to hate mongering and also a media hub for Neo Nazis...

Yet none of this has been publicly talked about..

We find ourselves in a witch hunt of finance reform...and as we saw with Norman Shu in the Clinton campaign scandal with illegal funds and also from outside influence that are deemed unsavory...

i for one am quite disturbed that a person never mind a leading government official would take "hate money"

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthr ... 88512.html

we find ourselves in a world that dirty money runs almost everything...but i would like to hear your 2 cents on this ppl....

Oh just as an FYI i am in no way calling Ron Paul a hate monger in any sense i like alot of his ideas and i think he as a person is a good man...

It is just in my firm thought that politicians that don't advocate such practices should not accept money from outside interests that do ..


Just wanted to say that to clear the air so as to not to Bash Mr.Paul

I think Ron Paul has made it clear that he does not advocate the positions held by organizations like Stormfront. Dr. Paul does have a strong position on returning to the gold standard, getting tough on immigration and the elimination of affirmative action. This is something many of the right wing militia nutballs also support. They probably do not support his statements about calling Dr. King a hero. Nor would they, I imagine, support a system that would replace affirmative action, since it would be based on individual achievement (and how bright can you be when you follow such a dead-end, racist ideology).

Dr. Paul has stated his positions and has said that he'll take a donation from any individual. The donations from Stormfront came from the individuals involved with that organization, not from the organization itself. Therefore, their individual donations hold no more weight than any other donor. So why should he return the money?

In the case of Norman Shu, he was a democratic fundraiser, which meant he ran around getting others to donate to the Clintons. He organized millions and is now being investigated for mail fraud. That could mean the money was collected illegally. If you wanted to give, say, one million dollars to the Clinton Campaign, you cannot do it legally. However, if you had a fundraiser organize a group of people to spread the money out and then "donate" it, you can skirt the law. That kind of money juggling is illegal.

Stormfront is urging individual wackos to donate. That's not illegal.

And, the bottom line is, Dr. Paul is very vocal about individual freedoms. That also includes the many freedoms the right wing militia groups enjoy. Unfortunately, to guard everyone's freedom people on the fringe need to be protected. You can just protect the speech you like. Recently, Congress passed a "home grown terrorism" bill. It's a vague law designed to target Muslim groups funneling money to terrorists, but it can easily be expanded to including right wing militias or any group.

While I don't condone the actions of these right wing nutballs, I do support their right to fly the confederate flag, load up with guns, drive out into the woods and bad mouth minorities. As long as they don't hurt anyone, who cares? Quite frankly, the more attention you give these idiots, the more their groups seem validated. Look at Al Queda. The US has treated it like it was a world power and it continues to increase in power, almost as if its a sovereign nation.

So, in a sense, Ron Paul is a good candidate for these groups. And, in a backward way, that can only be good for the rest of us. These groups thrive on portraying themselves as "the victim". The "poor" Stormfront guys are the victim of the God-knows-what minority cabal, and won't some good "white" man come and save them. If they think Ron Paul is on their side, let them. It takes the edge of their whole deal. Maybe it calms a few of their members down and keeps them from committing violent acts.

I say he should keep the money. To return it would mean he'd have to scrutinize every donor.

-TD

You present a very valid point Tony and i can only hope more on the forum would join in on this discussion...


Well seeing my guy has dropped from the race...." John Edwards" many assume im going to support Obama...which all and all i think he is a fine choice..

But the reason i brought up Dr.Ron Paul is to be honest...the guy struck a note with me...i think he's one of the first Republicans i do like...

Its like hvaing someone with common sense run the country....i know its a very weird concept ....but imagine..some one with...common sense running the show...it still gives me the chills lol

But im torn between the 2..i like both there views right now what has me on the fence is the possible...although outside chance of a
"Obama Edwards" ticket...or any ticket with Edwards...ive been a die hard supporter if him since 2003 when i first heard about him.....

But if he is not...then Dr.Paul might be the way to go

Yeah, I hear ya. I had a lot of that same sentiment. While I like Edwards and Obama, they still make the same fundamental mistake on foreign policy. They continue to build it around the security of other countries that are not the United States. One example is Israel. It receives billions in foreign aid even though the country has its own nukes and plenty of ordinance. Both Obama and Edwards (and most major candidates) go out of their way to say they are committed to the security of Israel. While I agree, Israel should be an ally, the candidates should be, above all, committed to the security of the United States. It's a fundamental mistake to align the US with any other country in a defense pact. Even NATO is becoming dangerous. The Bush administration has used it to encircle Russia, increasing tension where there is none.

Although one would think that Obama and Edwards are smart enough to see that our foreign policy needs to pull back from intervention, neither one sounds very committed to that idea. They seem to keep saying, "Don't worry, Bush was an idiot. I'm not. Therefore, when I fight these wars we don't need, they'll be done much smarter and we'll win." The point is, the wars themselves are to blame as well as the intervention.

Check out this article.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12306

-TD