Friday, January 04, 2008

The Dark Side of Dr. Paul

One of my favorite candidates for president this year is Vermin Supreme, who recently donated some of his campaign props to the NH Political Library. He was wearing sparkly silver underwear over his pants as he made the donation. When asked by the Concord Monitor what he stands for he answered, “I stand for all that is good.” Mr. Supreme also touted his mandatory tooth brushing campaign, his work to promote time travel research, and zombie preparedness. In any election year the real long shot candidates like Vermin Supreme or Lobsterman are more interesting than any of the so-called front runners. Many of us remember (with affection) Pat Paulson’s ongoing candidacy for the White House. Another one of my favorites was Louis Abolafia, who ran for President in 1968 representing the Cosmic Love Party. His campaign literature featured a picture of him naked, asking, “What have I got to hide?” Fortunately none of the current crop of candidates are likely to emulate Abolafia. Some of us are still recovering from the 2003 pictures of Wesley Clark in a Speedo.

That was the year that Howard Dean dominated the internet, and used it to shake loose millions of dollars in contributions. This time, Republican candidate Ron Paul is the internet king. His supporters are everywhere on the internet. Heaven help the hapless writer who actually uses critical thinking skills in a story on Paul. Legions of Paul’s cultish supporters show up to tell the writer how wrong he is for trying to hold Paul accountable for his own statements. His supporters show up at Meet-Ups wearing pseudo Revolutionary War garb. They have some things in common – most of them are men, and most of them are white. A cursory look into Paul’s campaign finances reveals that 81% of his individual donors are men.

They are often alienated white men who have been hearing all their lives that “gummint bad,” thanks to Ronald Reagan, who used to delight in telling us how bad government was, while he was working diligently to join it. Ron Paul does the same thing. He loves to talk about term limits, though he doesn’t believe in them for himself. Paul loves to portray himself as being different from the Washington insider types. Paul first ran for Congress in 1974. He lost, but was elected that same year in a special election to finish Robert R. Casey’s term. He was not re-elected in ’76, but he was elected again in 1979, and stayed for a couple of terms. In 1984 he ran for US Senate, and lost. In 1988 he ran for president as the libertarian candidate. By 1997, he’d gone back to being a Republican and was sent back to Congress. For a guy who hates the government, he sure has worked hard to get into it. If he’s not an insider, it’s because nobody likes him.

A number of liberals have jumped on the Paul bandwagon, because Paul has been outspoken in opposition to the war in Iraq. He favors a non-interventionist foreign policy, and he’d like to close down some of our military bases in other countries, he’d get rid of the Patriot Act and protect our civil liberties, and he’d like to cut defense spending. If one stops there, he’s a good candidate. No one should stop there.

One reason Paul may not enjoy so much female support is his stance on abortion. He’s an OB-GYN who loves to tell us how many babies he’s delivered, as he touts his pro-life beliefs. He has stated that he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. He also thinks that abortion should be a state issue, not a federal one. Depending on what state a woman lived in, she could be forced to serve as an incubator. It is civil liberties he wants to protect. Civil rights are an entirely different story. Paul takes Libertarianism cafeteria style. When it comes to the rights of those who make him uncomfortable (women, homosexuals) he prefers to shunt them off to the states to decide. We might still have slavery, were it up to him.

The dark side of Dr. Paul goes largely unreported. He has ties to neo-Nazis and white nationalists. He’s the only Congressman with a 100% rating from the John Birch Society. Paul received the coveted David Duke endorsement. Who wouldn’t want to be endorsed by a former Grand Wizard of the KKK? One of his biggest internet organizers from Tennessee is a neo-Nazi. Will Williams (aka “White Will”) was the southern coordinator for the biggest neo-Nazi party in the US, the National Alliance Party. Don Black, founder of, a white nationalist website (which features links to the Ron Paul official campaign donation page) made a $500 campaign contribution to Paul. When asked if the campaign would return this contribution, a spokesperson said no. StormFront’s motto is “White Pride Worldwide.” Dr. Paul’s columns are featured in the American Free Press, a publication that focuses on the role of Zionism in US politics. Willis Carto, a Holocaust denier is a regular contributor.

Since 1985, Ron Paul has published a newsletter. It was initially called the Ron Paul Report, and was later renamed the Ron Paul Survival Report. His name is on the newsletter. In 1992, the newsletter published some really offensive statements such as, "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Paul now denies that he wrote those statements, though he didn’t deny it at the time, he didn’t deny it when asked in 1996 – but he denies it now and blames a staffer.

The Paul cultists would have us believe that he has no control over who supports him, (true) that this is some sort of coincidence. I’d be mighty alarmed, myself; if suddenly neo-Nazis were flocking to me. I believe I’d take some action – like refusing to take their money, and making it clear, loudly and often, that I didn’t support white nationalists, anti-Semites, or bigots. Dr. Paul hasn’t done any of those things.

Perhaps his supporters can turn a blind eye to his racist ties, because he wants to eliminate the income tax. Perhaps their loathing of the income tax can blind them to the fact that Ron Paul, man of science, doesn’t believe in evolution…”it’s a theory, and I don’t accept it, um….as a theory.” They thought he whupped Tim Russert on a recent “Meet the Press” appearance. I was embarrassed for him. He didn’t seem to have any facts at his disposal, wasn’t embarrassed by his ignorance, and became increasingly shrill as the interview wore on. Only dogs could hear the last few answers.

Talk show host Michael Medved posted an open letter to Paul, asking him if he would publicly disassociate himself from these fringe groups. To date, there has been no response.


Anonymous said...

Hi Susan,
Great smear piece...

...keep up the good work!!

susanb said...

Hi anonymous -

I'm sorry you aren't brave enough to use your real identity - OR to point any factual inaccuracies.

Anonymous said...

"Talk show host Michael Medved..."

Mikey Medved is a racist of the first order that only recently came out with a defense of slavery:

When you and/or Medved can come up with as scathing a rebuke to racism as Dr. Paul has below, let me know:

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

susanb said...

So, anonymouse, rather than address the racist ties of Ron Paul you prefer to attack Michael Medved. That's meaningless. Why didn't Paul denounce and refuse David Duke's endorsement? Why hasn't he fired Will Williams, the neo-Nazi in Tennessee? Why hasn't he returned the check from Don Black? Why hasn't he answered Michael Medved?

Anonymous said...

"Why didn't Paul denounce and refuse David Duke's endorsement? Why hasn't he fired Will Williams, the neo-Nazi in Tennessee? Why hasn't he returned the check from Don Black? Why hasn't he answered Michael Medved?"

Ron Paul is wise to ignore all of the idiots that seek to gain publicity through him.

That includes Duke, Black and Medved.

Will Williams doesn't work for Ron Paul anymore than you work for Mikey Medved.

susanb said...

Let's summarize, shall we? You claim that I'm smearing the good doctor, yet you have no factual proof that this is so. You offer only overblown rhetoric - and you aren't brave enough to use your real name.

thanks for playing

Anonymous said...

"You claim that I'm smearing the good doctor"

That wasn't me but while you're at it, yes you are smearing Ron Paul. It won't work. The media has been trying to smear him and he's still gaining tracton.

I don't give my real name to someone with obvious hostility issues.

Happy New Year.

susanb said...

I see. How am I suppposed to tell all of you anonymouse people apart?

If I'm smearing, you should be able to provide facts to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

Cletus said...

I thought this was America where all citizens deserved equal representin'! As the Grand purple wizard dragon of our local chapter, I commend Dr. Paul for stepping up to the plate and accepting his position as our sponsored represenative! Yeeee HAAAAW

David Thurlow said...

Ron Paul—who, fair or not, will never be president because of his popularity among racists… end of story—turns prejudice, which exists in the minds of individuals, into "collectivism." His disdain for any kind institutional response to any problem—in this case the problem being that racism, sexism, etc. are deeply institutionalized—precludes him from thinking that there may be social solutions. It’s the “gee if people would just stop being racist then there wouldn’t be any more racists” school of thought.

But apart from the racism business (which this country doesn’t really even have the vocabulary to address effectively) Paul seems to be an incredibly decent and smart man. His voice needs to be heard so that the libertarian-minded folks who flock to him can fully examine his free market philosophy. If that happened, they may see that "big gommint" is not nearly as controlling, un-libertarian, liberty hating, and intrusive as corporations. Not even close.

This is a libertarian blind spot. Ironically, and to Paul's credit, he is the only one to straight out call the Bush administration fascist (“soft” fascism he called it on Tim Russert two weeks ago) and rightly so. Fascism is the integrating of corporate, government—and in the case of neocons—religious institutions in the name of individual power and control. The odd thing is that Paul doesn’t seem to see that the government, by its unwillingness to control corporations in deference to their “individual” rights, is responsible for the lack of true individual choices in media, consumer goods, democratic action, and foreign policy that libertarians decry. So, more governmental control could mean more liberty if corporations were reigned in. It’s not quite that simple, but it’s an important discussion that is not taking place among the major corporate candidates.

At least Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (along with Mike Gravel and formerly Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan) are gutsy enough to talk about real change and are sincere about wanting change and not just grabbing control. So what happens… corporations shut them out!

How about a Ron Paul Dennis Kucinich debate one on one? At least there would be a real focus on two great American principles—liberty and compassion—instead of all the hollow pandering we get from Clinton, Romney, Obama, Guiliani, Edwards, Huckabee.

susanb said...

Some of you will have noticed that I haven't posted your comments. I won't post rude or silly comments, and I'm not posting comments that are pages and pages of material.

I encourage you to respond - but also encourage you to simply provide a link to the material you reference, not all 14 paragraphs of the material.

I also encourage any Paul supporter to answer my questions. Why hasn't Ron Paul refused David Duke's endorsement? Why hasn't he returned the money from Don Black? Why isn't he addressing the concerns about his ties to neo-Nazis and white nationalists?

susanb said...

An update folks - since last night, I've received 3 threats from "anonymous."

I'm not going give the various members of the clan the satisfaction of posting them. All you anonymii out there should be aware that you are reinforcing the image that Ron Paul supporters are deranged.

Abell9 said...

Not sure Ron Paul is as bad as portrayed nor am I sure he isn't. But, still being America or what's left of it your opinion is valid. And to those who do this threat crap under the cloak and concealment of a web page only strengthen the case against Paul. Because if idiots follow him and do this cowardly crap....he must be a dumbass magnet.

Nikkiru said...

So there's something wrong with a "smear", when the facts related are true and the reasoning used to make sense of them is sound?

I'd also like to see an intelligent rebuttal from a Paul supporter. But I'm not holding my breath.

Anonymous said...

Why would he return Duke's contribution? Will he then be expected to sift through all of the other contributions and determine which donations are from White Supremacists? That's impossible to do. Why aren't Huckabee or McCain refusing donations from white supremacists? What you don't understand is that Ron Paul is not a racist because he has support from a few whack job white supremacists. Those white supremacists could use the money to fuel their agenda, but they chose to give it to Ron Paul. Ron Paul will do good with the money. So you're saying you want him to give the money back to the wackos so that they can put it toward their white supremacist agenda? Am I reading that clearly???

susanb said...

To the most recent of the anonymous tribe:

Since much was made of the contribution from DON BLACK, it wouldn't be hard to refuse it. Customarily, politicians refuse money and endorsements from people and groups they do not wish to be associated with. Ron Paul did not refuse the endorsement of David Duke - former Grand Wizard of the KKK. He did not refuse the $500 check from Don Black of

If he wishes to avoid being tainted by accusations of racism, he should refuse to deal with famous racists. As Grandma used to say, "lay down with dogs, get up with fleas."