Return of the Blacks

Remember Don and Derek Black, the father and son white supremacist duo who donated and cuddled up to Ron Paul in a photo that gave him weeks of grief?

The Blacks are back. In August, Derek won a seat on the Palm Beach, Florida Republican state committee, which led to fulsome praise from David Duke.

Derek, being the son of Stormfront's own Don Black shows what so many of us should be doing. If he can do it with the notoriety of his father and the notoriety of another rather notorious relation in his life, me, in a place of the demographics of West Palm Beach, it should show to all of you that there is no reason why there shouldn't be thousands of us elected to office.

I think this is some of the greatest news in a long, long time.

The local Republicans groped around for a loophole and found one in Black's failure to sign a GOP loyalty oath. On Wednesday he showed up to take his slot on the committee (wearing the stupid hat he wore in the Ron Paul photo and refusing to take it off) and was shut out. Black whined to the Palm Beach Post about how he won in the first place:

"I talked about immigration," he said. "I talked about the presidential campaign. That was the biggest issue. This was back in August, July. Most of them weren't happy with (Sen. John) McCain turning out to be their candidate. It did come up a few times that I didn't like McCain."

The support of white supremacists for Ron Paul was a frustrating sideshow in 2007 and early 2008. It seemed unfair to slam Paul, as some blogs did, for merely being photographed with the Blacks. I met hundreds of Paul supporters, not all of them white, almost none of them racist. But I did see Stormfront's Jamie Kelso in the Ron Paul tent at the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll last summer, blogging excitedly about the rEVOLution, so it was't a surprise that racists tried to co-opt the Paul message. The Palm Beach Republicans have the right idea about how to handle these people: keep them as far away from real politics and other people as possible.

Comments

libertarian democrat | December 4, 2008, 9:48am | #

wait wait wait...

The white supremacists are named Black?

That's awesome.

peachy but preachy | December 4, 2008, 9:52am | #

but but but but but but but libertarians hate poor people and dangerous minorities.

Why aren't you singing this guy's praises?

"How do I know you're not all racists?"

Lola | December 4, 2008, 9:53am | #

Midland Co., MI had a similar issue. The local RP campaign organizer was discovered to have KKK ties in late summer. The same guy made headlines the day after the election for walking around downtown in Klan regalia, and now he's whining about getting removed as a GOP precinct delegate.

joe | December 4, 2008, 9:53am | #

If he can do it with the notoriety of his father and the notoriety of another rather notorious relation in his life, me, in a place of the demographics of West Palm Beach, it should show to all of you that there is no reason why there shouldn't be thousands of us elected to office.

West Palm?

Huh.

Maybe all those people really did mean to vote for Pat Buchanan.

supersoaker xp105 | December 4, 2008, 9:58am | #

peachy, I'm going to regret calling you out, but you are too stupid to respond to. Please go away.

J sub D | December 4, 2008, 10:00am | #

Good for the Palm Beach republicans. This won't make me a GOP supporter, but it does give me one less reason to despise the spineless hypocritical bastards.

Only 127 more to go.

Jack Jones | December 4, 2008, 10:01am | #

Yee haw,aint life just grand, Yee haw!!

http://www.privacy.de.tc

Warren | December 4, 2008, 10:03am | #

I did see Stormfront's Jamie Kelso in the Ron Paul tent at the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll last summer, blogging excitedly about the rEVOLution, so it was't a surprise that racists tried to co-opt the Paul message. The Palm Beach Republicans have the right idea about how to handle these people: keep them as far away from real politics and other people as possible.

Whoa there. The photo was a very small story at the time. It snowballed a bit when Paul said he wouldn't give the money back. But even that didn't slow down the Loverution Express. It was the Newsletters that put the stake in the heart of Paul 08.

While I like the idea of "keep them as far away from real politics and other people as possible", how should we go about implementing it? Libertarian purity tests have been more of a hindrance than an asset. And I'd be very skeptical of anyone playing the role of gatekeeper, deciding who's in and who's out.

It seems like an easy call with these insects, but it's a slippery slope. What about the truthers? are they next? I'd still be OK with that, but I'm sure you'd get around to excommunicating me soon enough.

domoarrigato | December 4, 2008, 10:05am | #

joe,

I have always thought they did. Despite much evidence to the contrary, Floridiots are not too stupid to fill out simple ballots. There is a lot of racism down there - especially among the elderly.

TV's Frank | December 4, 2008, 10:07am | #

"The Palm Beach Republicans have the right idea about how to handle these people: keep them as far away from real politics and other people as possible."

Yeah, let's sideline the people we disagree with, but complain when the powers-that-be sideline libertarians!

Head | December 4, 2008, 10:08am | #

Warren,

Just between you and me, I think we are the only two real Libertarians on this site. And frankly, I'm not too sure about you...

SugarFree | December 4, 2008, 10:12am | #

Whatever, Head. Don't you know that Eric Dondero walked 14 miles, uphill and in blinding October snowstorms for the Libertarian Party for decades?

Head | December 4, 2008, 10:21am | #

I don't give a crap if he gave a prostate exam to the Abominable Snowman - I hereby excommunicate everyone but myself.

Lao Tzu | December 4, 2008, 10:23am | #

Whoa there. The photo was a very small story at the time. It snowballed a bit when Paul said he wouldn't give the money back. But even that didn't slow down the Loverution Express. It was the Newsletters that put the stake in the heart of Paul 08.

Nope, it was Ron Paul who put the stake in the heart of Paul '08 by not campaigning. You can't win in New Hampshire and Iowa while sitting in Texas and DC.

Lamar | December 4, 2008, 10:28am | #

Please don't report on these dirtbags.

J sub D | December 4, 2008, 10:30am | #

It seems like an easy call with these insects, but it's a slippery slope. What about the truthers? are they next? I'd still be OK with that, but I'm sure you'd get around to excommunicating me soon enough.

I've already started the purge Warren petition drive. Donderoooooo is point man. ;-)

Frantic Ernie | December 4, 2008, 10:32am | #

Arrgh! Fulsome! Arrrrrrgh!

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 10:39am | #

The primary disadvantage of the "freedom" brand is that you end up by dint of the nature of the beast selling to those who don't have it...and in a mostly free society, that means including folks who are for lack of a better term "fringe".

When you stand for freedom for drug addicts, prostitutes, pornographers, and haters to do their thing, shockingly they are grateful and they hug you oh so tightly. Great for the principle, not so much for the brand.

Lefiti | December 4, 2008, 10:40am | #

Let's see: Jeremiah Wright's racism and black supremacism = awesome enough for Weigel to vote Obama.

David Duke's racism and white supremacism = awful.

Must be that "only white people can be racist" argument.

Why does Weigel even bother to pose as libertarian anymore?

economist | December 4, 2008, 10:48am | #

"Lefiti",
I know you're not the real Lefiti. If you were, you would call Ron Paul a senile white racist and tell us all to go screw ourselves.

tarran | December 4, 2008, 10:49am | #

When one remembers that Edward/Lefiti first showed up on Reason to post diatribes about Ron Paul being a theocratic racist wingnut, the spoof at 10:40 becomes even more funny.

joe | December 4, 2008, 10:49am | #

Guy who's spoofing Lefiti,

You drew the B backwards.

economist | December 4, 2008, 10:50am | #

Elemenope,
And when you explain that you're not like them and you personally think they're idiots for doing what they do, they get all offended.

economist | December 4, 2008, 10:51am | #

tarran,
I'm positive that the 10:40 poster isn't Lefiti. He didn't sound unhinged.

John C Jackson | December 4, 2008, 10:51am | #

Sounds like this Derek Black kid is part of the Ron Paul CFL strategy of taking over local GOP committees and precincts. I'm sure he has the full support of many Paultards.

P Brooks | December 4, 2008, 10:55am | #

The Palm Beach Republicans have the right idea about how to handle these people: keep them as far away from real politics and other people as possible.

I'm not so sure about this. Muzzling him makes his ideas seem more powerful.

Letting him speak out, and then saying, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard" seems more effective to me.

boston | December 4, 2008, 10:59am | #

The Palm Beach Republicans have the right idea about how to handle these people: keep them as far away from real politics and other people as possible.


I'm all for this sentiment. But the word loyalty and oath should never go together.

Warren | December 4, 2008, 11:00am | #

it was Ron Paul who put the stake in the heart of Paul '08 by not campaigning.

Lao Tzu,
I don't disagree, but that is a separate issue. It's true that Paul bungled NH badly. But the flock still kept faith with the shepherd. However after the Paul refused to name names, the rats (like me) began jumping off the gunwales.

concerned observer | December 4, 2008, 11:01am | #

Gee, what a surprise that Ron Paul didn't return the money donated by racists. He probably wouldn't have had a problem with it if no one else had taken notice. Why? Could it be because Ron Paul is, well, a racist?

kuarl marks | December 4, 2008, 11:01am | #

Ron Paul is a theocratic racist wingnut, and you should all be ashamed!

concerned observer | December 4, 2008, 11:02am | #

I suppose you're now going to excommunicate, regardless fo the fact that I never subscribed to your little cult?

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 11:02am | #

Letting him speak out, and then saying, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard" seems more effective to me.

That's easier for us to say, not being on the GOP committee in Palm Beach. I'd probably agree with you (and making fun of racists is *fun*), but some people have skins of normal thickness and shouldn't (if they are in a private organization) have to put up with that kind of crap if they don't want to.

Warren | December 4, 2008, 11:02am | #

May I have your attention please?
May I have your attention please?
Will the real Lefiti please stand up?
I repeat, will the real Lefiti please stand up?
We're gonna have a problem here..

Y'all act like you never seen a troll blogger before
Jaws all on the floor like Pam, like Tommy just burst in the door
and started whoopin her ass worse than before
they first were divorce, throwin her over furniture (Ahh!)
It's the return of the... "Ah, wait, no way, you're kidding,
he didn't just say what I think he did, did he?"
And Dr. Dre said... nothing you idiots!
Dr. Dre's dead, he's locked in my basement! (Ha-ha!)
Feminist women love Eminem
[*vocal turntable: chigga chigga chigga*]
"Lefiti, I'm sick of him
Look at him, walkin around grabbin his you-know-what
Flippin the you-know-who," "Yeah, but he's so cute though!"
Yeah, I probably got a couple of screws up in my head loose
But no worse, than what's goin on in your parents' bedrooms
Sometimes, I wanna get on TV and just let loose, but can't
but it's cool for Tom Green to hump a dead moose
"My bum is on your lips, my bum is on your lips"
And if I'm lucky, you might just give it a little kiss
And that's the message that we deliver to little kids
And expect them not to know what a woman's clitoris is
Of course they gonna know what intercourse is
By the time they hit fourth grade
They got the Discovery Channel don't they?
"We ain't nothing but mammals.." Well, some of us cannibals
who cut other people open like cantaloupes [SLURP]
But if we can hump dead animals and antelopes
then there's no reason that a man and another man can't elope
[*EWWW!*] But if you feel like I feel, I got the antidote
Women wave your pantyhose, sing the chorus and it goes

[Chorus: Eminem (repeat 2X)]

'Cause I'm Lefiti, yes I'm the real fiti
All you other Lefitis are just imitating
So won't the real Lefiti please stand up,
please stand up, please stand up?

[Eminem]
Will Smith don't gotta cuss in his raps to sell his records;
well I do, so fuck him and fuck you too!
You think I give a damn about a Grammy?
Half of you critics can't even stomach me, let alone stand me
"But Slim, what if you win, wouldn't it be weird?"
Why? So you guys could just lie to get me here?
So you can, sit me here next to Britney Spears?
Shit, Christina Aguilera better switch me chairs
so I can sit next to Carson Daly and Fred Durst
and hear 'em argue over who she gave head to first
You little bitch, put me on blast on MTV
"Yeah, he's cute, but I think he's married to Kim, hee-hee!"
I should download her audio on MP3
and show the whole world how you gave Eminem VD [AHHH!]
I'm sick of you little girl and boy groups, all you do is annoy me
so I have been sent here to destroy you [bzzzt]
And there's a million of us just like me
who cuss like me; who just don't give a fuck like me
who dress like me; walk, talk and act like me
and just might be the next best thing but not quite me!

[Chorus]

[Eminem]
I'm like a head trip to listen to, cause I'm only givin you
things you joke about with your friends inside your living room
The only difference is I got the balls to say it
in front of y'all and I don't gotta be false or sugarcoated at all
I just get on the mic and spit it
and whether you like to admit it [*ERR*] I just shit it
better than ninety percent of you rappers out can
Then you wonder how can kids eat up these albums like valiums
It's funny; cause at the rate I'm goin when I'm thirty
I'll be the only person in the nursin home flirting
Pinchin nurses asses when I'm jackin off with Jergens
And I'm jerkin but this whole bag of Viagra isn't working
And every single person is a Lefiti lurkin
He could be workin at Burger King, spittin on your onion rings
[*HACH*] Or in the parkin lot, circling
Screaming "I don't give a fuck!"
with his windows down and his system up
So, will the real Fiti please stand up?
And put one of those fingers on each hand up?
And be proud to be outta your mind and outta control
and one more time, loud as you can, how does it go?

[Chorus 4X]

[Eminem]
Ha ha
Guess there's a Lefiti in all of us
Fuck it, let's all stand up

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 11:04am | #

Gee, what a surprise that Ron Paul didn't return the money donated by racists.

If a racist was stupid enough to give me money, and I suspected that if I gave it back the money instead would go to printing hateful leaflets or supporting websites, I wouldn't give it back either. I might not keep it (I think donating it to the SPLC or the American Negro College Fund has the suitable quantity of irony), but I sure as hell wouldn't give it back so that it could be used to do naughty things.

concerned observer | December 4, 2008, 11:07am | #

@LM-So why didn't Ron paul donate it to the SPLC or the American Negro College Fund?

Silent Tom | December 4, 2008, 11:07am | #

Wiegel. and what does Ron Paul have to do with this?
I know you add his name to your blogs to both smear him and add a few extra hits.
you really love stirring the pot little guy dont you?
you will always be remembered as a trouble making loser amongst the fringe of the fringe.

a name before submitting the form | December 4, 2008, 11:08am | #

I'm happy he was locked out of the committee, but it seems a little hypocritical for reason™ (it's hard to single out "reason" as the name of the publication when it isn't capitalized) to be glad anyone is locked out of a position he was democratically elected to because of a party loyalty oath.

kuarl marks | December 4, 2008, 11:08am | #

Concerned observer is a theocratic racist wingnut!

rightfiti | December 4, 2008, 11:09am | #

Lefiti is a theocratic racist wingnut

joe | December 4, 2008, 11:09am | #

Paul should have given the amount of the donation to the ADL or NAACP or some such group.

Fifty bucks, and think of all the free media he would have gotten, framed around the story "Ron Paul: Opposes Racism, Even When It Costs Him."

Big missed opportunity.

rightfiti | December 4, 2008, 11:13am | #

joe is Ron Paul!

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 11:17am | #

So why didn't Ron paul donate it to the SPLC or the American Negro College Fund?

Because like all campaigns, his needed money (even with the money bombs et al.) and, frankly, he's probably one of the more politically tone-deaf politicians out there.

FatDrunkAndStupid | December 4, 2008, 11:18am | #

Joe,

Yeah, I'm SURE that's what the story would be. If the media browbeat Paul in to giving back that money they would have spent the rest of the campaign pouring over the private lives of his contributers and repeating the process over and over again. Paul stood on principle on that issue, which is why his supporters love him so much. A contribution is an endorsement of what Paul believes, not the other way around. Returning that money would have been wrong politically, but more important, it would have been wrong morally as well.

In terms of the whole "racism" thing, I think this is a very simple issue. If someone believes in private racism, that's their business and we should welcome such people in to the movement. But if you believe in state or public racism, then you can't be a libertarian by definition. That's the dividing line. It's clean and clear and we should adhere to it rigorously. We are a party of principle, not personality.

economist | December 4, 2008, 11:21am | #

"Fifty bucks, and think of all the free media he would have gotten, framed around the story 'Ron Paul: Opposes Racism, Even When It Costs Him.'"
Actually joe, I'm pretty sure the headline would have been about something completely different. It simply would have been a non-story.

I am... | December 4, 2008, 11:23am | #

joebait

FatDrunkAndStupid | December 4, 2008, 11:33am | #

And I don't really get the editorial support for what the Palm Beach GOP did here. They basically booted a guy entered and won an election under the rules because they didn't like what he believed. If that sounds familiar, it's what local corrupt GOP outfits have been doing to us ever since the start of the Ron Paul Revolution. If you don't attack what is happening to this Black guy, then don't cry foul when they do the same thing to us because we believe in an end to prohibition or stopping the war in Iraq.

tarran | December 4, 2008, 11:37am | #

I think that people in the media were gunning for Ron Paul and thus would not have given him favorable press over such a gesture.

With that being said, it was a shame he gave his enemies so much ammunition.

But, he opened people's eyes to alot of the B.S. spewed by the establishment to justify the status quo, and as such his run overall had a positive effect

joe | December 4, 2008, 11:42am | #

FDS,

If the media browbeat Paul in to giving back that money they would have spent the rest of the campaign pouring over the private lives of his contributers and repeating the process over and over again. Ohnoes, media attention! Seriously, your theory here is that the media would have put a bunch of effort into drumming up a story about RON PAUL? I rather think not.

Paul stood on principle on that issue, which is why his supporters love him so much.

Both of them. Great strategy.

The Angry Optimist | December 4, 2008, 11:43am | #

FDS - the GOP is a private organization. If they want to change the rules to boot racists, good for them! If they want to change them to boot free-marketers and non-interventionists, I won't play with them.

It's not that difficult. The market in political parties works.

joe | December 4, 2008, 11:44am | #

You're all joebait.

Linking to what an AM Conservative Tawk Radio DJ thinkgs about an anti-discrimination group is a particularly weak variety, though.

economist | December 4, 2008, 11:45am | #

TAO,
Markets don't work so in politics, in part because we have a natural duopoly, and people who choose one supplier can enforce their decision on others.

economist | December 4, 2008, 11:46am | #

Runoff elections are actually a good idea.

joe | December 4, 2008, 11:47am | #

If the media browbeat Paul in to giving back that money...

This, BTW, is why you do it quick - so you can get the credit for doing it of your own initiative, rather than looking like you were browbeaten into it.

I think that people in the media were gunning for Ron Paul I think Ron Paul would have gotten a lot more media attention if they were actually gunning for him.

Of the little coverage I did see of his campaign, it was overwhelmingly positive, if a bit patronizing at times. Not the month he lead the field in fundraising, though.

Brad | December 4, 2008, 11:49am | #

Who is this Lefiti?

joe | December 4, 2008, 11:49am | #

Particularly if your biggest problem is being seen as a racist (ie, after the newsletters came out), the change to get attention for doing something to refute that image is a golder opportunity.

Think of Paul's CNN appearance after the Kirchick story broke. He did a really good job in that interview. Donating the fifty bucks could have bought him another one of those.

economist | December 4, 2008, 11:50am | #

In general, joe, the media ignored Ron Paul. I'm not complaining too much. After all, he didn't have much name recognition, and would not have one, and the outlets have to keep their ratings up. The Ron Paul racist donor story got a lot of attention because it was controversial, which presumably makes good news.

economist | December 4, 2008, 11:51am | #

Lefiti is a sock puppet for Edward, a leftwing troll, who sometimes comes on these threads for the purpose of explaining that we (libertarians) are simultaneously an irrelevant fringe cult AND the cause of all the trouble in the world.

R C Dean | December 4, 2008, 11:54am | #

Fifty bucks, and think of all the free media he would have gotten, framed around the story 'Ron Paul: Opposes Racism, Even When It Costs Him.

Or, perhaps - Ron Paul Tries to Downplay Racist Support: Too Little, Too Late.

Maybe even - Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: Public Scrutiny of Ron Paul Racist Support Base Forces Weak-Ass Response.

Not everybody gets the kid glove treatment that Barack got.

kim | December 4, 2008, 11:56am | #

While I can't speak of all Ron Paul supporters, I can tell you that the one Ron Paul Meet-Up I went to last New Year's was populated by, if not out and out racists, unapologetic bigots. Of the "state or public" variety. It's part of what turned me off the Ron Paul movement.

SugarFree | December 4, 2008, 11:56am | #

Who is this Lefiti?

Remember your last bout of explosive diarrhea? No matter how often you flush, it wasn't going to wash away that spattering of shit just under the lip of the back of the bowl.

He's the guy who broke in your house to lick it off while fucking a microwaved cantaloupe.

Patriot | December 4, 2008, 11:57am | #

"Weigel"

Nough said.

The Angry Optimist | December 4, 2008, 11:58am | #

Markets don't work so in politics, in part because we have a natural duopoly

It's the same problem we have with all market distortions. But that doesn't mean we should abrogate freedom of association.

economist | December 4, 2008, 12:00pm | #

I wasn't suggesting abridgement of freedom of association. Just pointing out that our political system bears little resemblance to a free market (even a distorted market).

MNG | December 4, 2008, 12:00pm | #

"When you stand for freedom for drug addicts, prostitutes, pornographers, and haters to do their thing, shockingly they are grateful and they hug you oh so tightly. Great for the principle, not so much for the brand."

LMNOP
Its worse than that I'm afraid. As I've said there are two kinds of libertarians I run into often: 1. those who doubt the power of government to help minorities and the poor and who think such efforts will make things worse for them and 2. those who are afraid such efforts just might work and don't like that.

As I've demonstrated over and over with TAO the libertarian line can easily be seen as protecting the benefits and advantages that some groups wrested forcibly and fraudently from other groups. Now that most blacks start with less wealth, social capital and opportunity due to past screwing of their ancestors in ways that benefited most whites, the libertarian line of "well, those people are gone now and taking from the benefited to help the victimized, or restricting the rights of the benefited in any way would be a violation of justice, therefore life ain't fair and do the best ya can" is very appealing to a racist or authoritarian. They know full well that normal market processes will retain their advantages for a long time to come...

FatDrunkAndStupid | December 4, 2008, 12:01pm | #

Yeah Joe. Ron Paul's biggest problem was being "perceived as a racist". LOL. The only people who even knew about the whole newsletter issue were libertarians, and the only impact the newsletter story had was an internal pissing fest between cosmos and paleos. Paul's biggest problem was the same problem that plagues EVERY libertarian candidate- a platform of not telling other people how to live their lives just isn't that popular.

joebait fact | December 4, 2008, 12:01pm | #

You're right. I'll just disappear, then.

*slinks off

MNG | December 4, 2008, 12:03pm | #

All those racists who supported Paul* did and do so not because of his opposition to hate crimes, but because he's going to "stop the f*cking government from taking money from honest hard working white folks and giving it to those n***ers!"


*I would think a small but significant minority judging from the supporters and events I experienced of course.

Dave Weigel | December 4, 2008, 12:06pm | #

Yeah, let's sideline the people we disagree with, but complain when the powers-that-be sideline libertarians!

But even Paul tried to sideline them! His position was that they were idiots, he didn't know who Black was when he took the photo, and that his philosophy was incompatible with racism.

If you don't attack what is happening to this Black guy, then don't cry foul when they do the same thing to us because we believe in an end to prohibition or stopping the war in Iraq.

Black punked himself by not signing the "loyalty oath." Then he cried foul and brought in David friggin' Duke to be his character witness. This is a pretty uniquely stupid situation.

Hard core Libertarian | December 4, 2008, 12:06pm | #

"Uhh, we took all your grandad's land, denied his right to contract, to attend colleges, have arms and used his labor to make our grandads rich and actively fostered the idea that your people are incompetent and untrustworthy among a great deal of our folk. But hey, that's all over now, any government program to ameliorate that is also wrong, so on your marks, get set, bargain! Any unequal outcomes are fair and just. Stop bitching, life ain't fair"


See how that would appeal to someone on Stormfront?

joe | December 4, 2008, 12:09pm | #

economist,

The Ron Paul racist donor story got a lot of attention because it was controversial, which presumably makes good news.

That's exactly what I'm saying - the guy was starved for media attention, and while he was getting some, finally, he completely whiffed on the chance to make it work for him.

Or, perhaps - Ron Paul Tries to Downplay Racist Support: Too Little, Too Late.

You're missing the point that he was already getting hit on the "racist supporters" story. He had the chance to change the narrative, and didn't take it.

Not everybody gets the kid glove treatment that Barack got. LoL, SCARY BLACH CHURCH! SCARY BLACK CHURCH! Naw naw naw...

Your tears are so yummy and sweet.

val | December 4, 2008, 12:12pm | #

If someone believes in private racism, that's their business and we should welcome such people in to the movement.

Fuck that, they are not welcome! Why the hell should we welcome bigots into the movement? And then one wonders why liberaterianism has such a hard time getting traction, because apparently we're supposed to welcome racist scumbags with open arms.

joe | December 4, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Yeah Joe. Ron Paul's biggest problem was being "perceived as a racist".

OK, his second biggest problem. His first biggest problem was not getting enough media attention to get his message out.

And when given the opportunity to 1) get media attention by 2) rebutting the charge, he decided not to.

The only people who even knew about the whole newsletter issue were libertarians Uh, it got covered on CNN. Did you miss that? He even did an interview. Best one he gave in the entire campaign, if you ask me.

MNG | December 4, 2008, 12:15pm | #

It doesn't help that when it counted in the 1960's a great deal of libertarians who seemed strangley absent in the fight against government oppression against blacks for decades suddenly became VERY animated and active to fight for sacred associational values in backing Goldwater and defeating the "evil" Civil Rights Act intended to ameliorate past and present injustices...

But of course contemporary libertarians would say that OF COURSE their philosophy was against all that oppression stuff too. It's just they happened to be involved in fighting the major attempts to remedy it historically...

Look, I'm not calling the libertarian movement racists. I truly believe most libertarians and most Ron Paul supporters are principled persons who want the best for most people. And I also note that wacky racist groups were very active for Obama and McCain. But it's easy to see what a racist sees in libertarianism and Paul, and historically the libertarians have not done enough in many people's minds to set themselves apart from that bad element (think of how strong neo-Confederatism is in the libertarian movement).

libertarian litmus test | December 4, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Would you welcome someone with halitosis?

BakedPenguin | December 4, 2008, 12:19pm | #

I think donating it to the SPLC or the American Negro College Fund has the suitable quantity of irony...

Paul should have given the amount of the donation to the ADL or NAACP or some such group.

I said it at the time - given Paul's position on the IRS, he should have donated the 'Black' money to Wesley Snipes' legal defense, and killed two birds with one stone.

fakelibertarian | December 4, 2008, 12:21pm | #

the RP obsesso-hatred rides again.

whitey | December 4, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Funny,these cowards will not utter a single sylable condemning Obama and his "typical white people" comment.But they ARE against racism' aren't they?They are 'against discrimination' too right? More qualified whites taking a back seat to jobs and school admissions cause their skin is white?Cowards refuse to condemn that, but they are against bigotry,discrimination and racism.

alan | December 4, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Earlier this week our local rag, The Greensboro News & Record ran a full color front page spread on a local Klan outfit, showing them in full regalia with substantial quotes and the works. The catch, the entire group consisted of 19 fuckwit, imbecile members. The local Libertarian Party chapter gets more people to come out for drinks on Wednesday nights than that without a mention from the assholes that run the GN&R. I suppose it is all about 'shining a light on hate', or some such nonsense to justify sensationalizing nonentities.

val | December 4, 2008, 12:36pm | #

Would you welcome someone with halitosis?

I suppose, but I would try to avoid personal contact, and carry a pack of gum with me all the time just in case. Speaking of which, you want some gum?

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 12:36pm | #

Its worse than that I'm afraid. As I've said there are two kinds of libertarians I run into often: 1. those who doubt the power of government to help minorities and the poor and who think such efforts will make things worse for them and 2. those who are afraid such efforts just might work and don't like that.

There is also group #3: Those who worry that it would work for a while but that the cost would be huge permanent increases in government power. I think this is a more accurate characterization of the Goldwater position (though obviously not many of his followers). When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

My thing is, I do actually have confidence that a powerful government could repair many historical inequalities between groups. It's just that such a government would have to be one hell of a powerful monster to do it. It's not that I wanna drown the government in a bathtub...it's that I want it to be *possible* if things go too far south. It's the whole "Never trust a computer you can't throw out of a window" standard.

alan | December 4, 2008, 12:45pm | #

And, BTW, am I the only person who noticed the use of illegals swimming across the Rio Grande in Paul's anti-immigrant commercial? I'm quite fond of Paul but it was offensive enough for me to decide he was not Presidential enough to get my support.

alan | December 4, 2008, 12:47pm | #

It is just a shame that many of you didn't think Obama sitting in the pews of the hate monger Reverend Wright meant he wasn't presidential enough for your support.

joe | December 4, 2008, 12:50pm | #

Knowing somebody who thinks certain things isn't the same as saying them yourself.

alan | December 4, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Belonging to a congregation means you carry the burden of association and are indeed responsible for your support of that person.

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 12:56pm | #

It is just a shame that many of you didn't think Obama sitting in the pews of the hate monger Reverend Wright meant he wasn't presidential enough for your support.

I didn't find him to be particularly hateful, so it wasn't a problem for me. Actually, to be frank, he was a pretty fucking tame version of a liberation theologian. Personally I think most white folks' skin is just a little thin on race issues.

Ben Rushing | December 4, 2008, 12:56pm | #

Ron Paul is a horible national level politician. He should just stay focused in the house and promote more legislation that will almost never have any chance of getting passed.

Part of me thinks that his anti base advocacy on unpopular issues wass simply to ensure that he got attention and influence in the debate while never ever wanting to win it.

Where the hell has he been since everyone now has a clear view of why the federal reserve is a bad thing? Shouldn't he be calling Neal Boortz, Fox News, and other news outlets letting everyone know how stupid all of this is?

It just seems that he always came off as if Scott Hall and Kevin Nash were already in the government and had actively recruited Hulk Hogan to help establish the new World order. Instead of simply calling the fed a stupid idiotic mismanagement of our money. But no, it was always evile corporatism and not lunacy. It was no wonder he had done so well with the 9/11 troofers and the tinfoil hat committee

JMR | December 4, 2008, 1:03pm | #

He was indeed tone deaf, even when people like me warned him. Dr. Paul could have EASILY:

1. Given the money to the Austin NAACP, since their leader was saying nice things about Paul anyway.

2. Tossed Lew Rockwell under the bus, since the racist newsletters came under his watch.

Does it matter that he likes Lew? No. Does it matter if Lew's a great guy? No. Does it matter what else Lew had done or will do? No.

This was a well telegraphed political punch, and Paul TOTALLY ignored it anyway, which was stupid. His internal, paid campaign were about as incompetent as the unpaid roots rEVOLution types were hardworking, and the combination didn't lead to a lot of respect from either side.

The Newsletter issue, like hiring Dondero and like some of his more-recent hires, were evidence that the good Doctor's judgment isn't always that great when it comes to people instead of policy. That's not a disqualifier for the Presidency, but he needed to find a way to counteract it, and he didn't.

Damn. I wish I'd convinced Prof. Walter Williams to run, so the issue would be ideas instead of race for once.

joe | December 4, 2008, 1:06pm | #

alan | December 4, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Belonging to a congregation means you carry the burden of association and are indeed responsible for your support of that person.

I'm not exactly sure what the high-falutin' "responsible for your support of that person" is supposed to mean - ZOMG! the guy's preacher is crazy! - but it sounds like the sort of language one would use to blur the difference between saying/believing things and, you know, not.

joe | December 4, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Personally I think most white folks' skin is just a little thin on race issues.

I think that 90% of the people wailing about Reverend Wright would have never given him a second thought if there wasn't a political advantage to acting offended.

Ben Rushing | December 4, 2008, 1:08pm | #

For every Carter, there is a Reagan

For every Obama, there is a .... Jindal? Palin? Paul Ryan?

Well we cerainly know that it won't be mormon boy, Rev love lution guy, or another Centrist Bush/McCain/Nixon/Ford type. Who oh who else could it be?

alan | December 4, 2008, 1:09pm | #

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 12:56pm | #
It is just a shame that many of you didn't think Obama sitting in the pews of the hate monger Reverend Wright meant he wasn't presidential enough for your support.

I didn't find him to be particularly hateful, so it wasn't a problem for me. Actually, to be frank, he was a pretty fucking tame version of a liberation theologian. Personally I think most white folks' skin is just a little thin on race issues.

I've got enough Mexican in my background that some keen sighted people notice so I don't really qualify to that remark. Race is only one aspect about Reverend Wright that is less than honorable, don't forget the 'ridin' dirty with Monica' remark
that seems, I don't know, beneath the standards we hold clergy too? Or, the gloating about the destruction of 9-11 on the Sunday after word; watch his face, hear the timber in his words, it was gloating, not admonishment for our sins as a Nation. I've listened to entire an entire performance of Rev. Wright made after Katrina just to be contextually fair, and at no time did he strike me as being any thing but an immature imbecile.

joe | December 4, 2008, 1:10pm | #

I certainly don't assume John Kerry to be anti-choice because he belongs to a Catholic Church, particularly since he's always articulated beliefs in direct opposition to that particular belief that his priest espouses.

Does he "carry the burden of association and are indeed responsible for your support of" the Catholic Church?

alan | December 4, 2008, 1:10pm | #

afterward not after words, damn spell correct software.

Bill Moore | December 4, 2008, 1:12pm | #

"Gee, what a surprise that Ron Paul didn't return the money donated by racists."

Why do you support giving money to racists?

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 1:13pm | #

I've got enough Mexican in my background that some keen sighted people notice so I don't really qualify to that remark

I wasn't talking about you, specifically (although you do seem to have a rough spot for the rev). Pretty much everyone (including formerly even-keeled and reasonable people) freaked the fuck out over stuff he said.

Or, the gloating about the destruction of 9-11 on the Sunday after word; watch his face, hear the timber in his words, it was gloating, not admonishment for our sins as a Nation. I've listened to entire an entire performance of Rev. Wright made after Katrina just to be contextually fair, and at no time did he strike me as being any thing but an immature imbecile.

You, sir, are clearly a Black Church virgin.

alan | December 4, 2008, 1:16pm | #

joe | December 4, 2008, 1:06pm | #
alan | December 4, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Belonging to a congregation means you carry the burden of association and are indeed responsible for your support of that person.

I'm not exactly sure what the high-falutin' "responsible for your support of that person" is supposed to mean - ZOMG! the guy's preacher is crazy! - but it sounds like the sort of language one would use to blur the difference between saying/believing things and, you know, not.

My words are clear and universal in the application of their meaning and lack any pretense that you suggest they have, whether you get them (or pretend not to) is irrelevant to
that fact.

Ben Rushing | December 4, 2008, 1:16pm | #

Republicans have their dumb preachers too. Hanity's emotional christtard arguments sound as bad as O'reilly's idiocy when it comes to atheists. Republicans have a bad history of using the Christ tards to get elected and then forgeting about implementing 100% of their agenda. Bush had a lot of backlash for this early on before 9/11. The Christ tard publications were not all too happy with him because of his choosing to ignore them. Dems tryed to use it as an advantage. I think that Obama just used write to get elected. I think that is why the idiot kept showing up on news shows was so that Obama wouldn't forget about where he came from once he got into the White House.

alan | December 4, 2008, 1:18pm | #

You, sir, are clearly a Black Church virgin.

Nope.

Ben Rushing | December 4, 2008, 1:19pm | #

I can't spell today. I'm as bad as Neal Boorts, in the fact that I almost never check my work before posting.

alan | December 4, 2008, 1:20pm | #

joe | December 4, 2008, 1:10pm | #
I certainly don't assume John Kerry to be anti-choice because he belongs to a Catholic Church, particularly since he's always articulated beliefs in direct opposition to that particular belief that his priest espouses.

Does he "carry the burden of association and are indeed responsible for your support of" the Catholic Church?

Nice try, but post Martin Luther, irrelevant.

alan | December 4, 2008, 1:24pm | #

I've got enough Mexican in my background that some keen sighted people notice so I don't really qualify to that remark

I wasn't talking about you, specifically (although you do seem to have a rough spot for the rev). Pretty much everyone (including formerly even-keeled and reasonable people) freaked the fuck out over stuff he said.


Okay, I can see that, but I wanted to make sure that you knew I'm coming from a different angle on this, though being White is not a dis qualifier for having a principled objection to Wright's hateful bile.

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 1:35pm | #

Nope.

Then somehow you've missed the point even while experiencing it.

It's been known to happen.

Okay, I can see that, but I wanted to make sure that you knew I'm coming from a different angle on this, though being White is not a dis qualifier for having a principled objection to Wright's hateful bile.

I agree that if there were a principled position to take, white people would not be excluded from taking it. But i don't think it was principled in the first place. *In addition* my point was (which doesn't apply to you) that whitey ain't great at talking about race, by and large.

John C. Randolph | December 4, 2008, 1:43pm | #

Ron Paul didn't return the money donated by racists.

If the devil itself gave me money, I'd keep it, too.

-jcr

Jennifer | December 4, 2008, 1:44pm | #

For all that Stormfronters are assholes richly deserving of marginalization, keeping out a guy who DID get voted in, just because he didn't sign a loyalty oath, does set a disturbing precedent. What's to stop them from keeping out people (i.e., like us) with the "wrong" views on drug legalization or sex-offender registries, either?

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 1:48pm | #

Well, Jennifer, if the GOP wants to cock up its standing with the rank-and-file, I sure won't complain. They seem locked in a self-destructive death spiral...do you really want to marry the rhetoric of freedom with those fools?

guy in the back | December 4, 2008, 1:49pm | #

"If the devil itself gave me money, I'd keep it, too."

What if it was Hitler instead of Satan?

alan | December 4, 2008, 1:53pm | #

I agree that if there were a principled position to take, white people would not be excluded from taking it. But i don't think it was principled in the first place. *In addition* my point was (which doesn't apply to you) that whitey ain't great at talking about race, by and large.

If you don't hold people equally to a standard of conduct, what is the point in being anti-racist? There is no ground to object to the practice of racism if this is not the case.

kwais | December 4, 2008, 1:54pm | #

There is also group #3: Those who worry that it would work for a while but that the cost would be huge permanent increases in government power. I think this is a more accurate characterization of the Goldwater position (though obviously not many of his followers). When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

My thing is, I do actually have confidence that a powerful government could repair many historical inequalities between groups. It's just that such a government would have to be one hell of a powerful monster to do it. It's not that I wanna drown the government in a bathtub...it's that I want it to be *possible* if things go too far south. It's the whole "Never trust a computer you can't throw out of a window" standard.


I DON'T think that government intervention is effective in the long term.

I think it actually causes more harm than good.

Iron fisted government intervention didn't work under Saddam, and it didn't work in Yugoslavia.

On the other hand the free market works slowely, but is indisputably fair.

Actually i also don't think that the free market works that slowely. It doesn't take long for most people who win the lotto to be broke again.

kwais | December 4, 2008, 1:55pm | #

I should add as examples of government intervention, the USA.

I mean how long has affirmative action been around? Has it solved the problem?

Can anyone say honestly that it has helped more than it has hurt?

Antony | December 4, 2008, 1:57pm | #

The reasoned argument Paul SHOULD have used for not giving back the Black donation:

"I am running for 'President of the United States of America'. Not for 'President of Only Those With Whom I Agree'. I believe that abortion is morally wrong, so should I refuse campaign funds from those who are pro-choice? Of course not. It is the same principle. My supporters are supporting the ideas of Liberty and they know where I stand on that. They give to my campaign because they know how important those ideas are. There will always be unpopular and unsavory ideas, but to stand for Liberty and the Rights of SOME Americans means I must stand for the liberty and rights of ALL Americans. I disagree with a lot of people, but I will certainly fight for their right to be wrong."

The urge to insult... | December 4, 2008, 1:57pm | #

Speaking of which, you want some gum?

..is the internet version of halitosis.

alan | December 4, 2008, 2:06pm | #

Antony | December 4, 2008, 1:57pm | #
The reasoned argument Paul SHOULD have used for not giving back the Black donation:


Pretty good speach, but if it were me, I would have donated that money to the Urban League, wrote up a pamphlet to be sent to racist groups asking them to contribute to the campaign written in a most congenial and as convincing as possible manner
with the explanation that all of their contributions would be going to
anti-poverty programs if they so wisely choose to contribute to the good doctor.

A tad cynical maybe, but good PR, and that is the nature of politics.

Jennifer | December 4, 2008, 2:07pm | #

Well, Jennifer, if the GOP wants to cock up its standing with the rank-and-file, I sure won't complain. They seem locked in a self-destructive death spiral...do you really want to marry the rhetoric of freedom with those fools?

I have no love for racists, especially the paranoid-schizo modern variety who temper their "My race is better than your race" beliefs with raving conspiracy theories about the secret Jewish emperor who controls all of Western civilization from his hidden bunker at the center of the earth.

That said, my question remains valid: if the GOP is going to deny a spot to a guy who won the election for having the wrong views on race, what's to stop them from doing the same thing to guys with the wrong views on anything else? There are people who sincerely believe that legalizing marijuana or keeping public urinators off the sex-offender registry would be just bad for society, if not worse, than letting some homely teenage Grand Wizard wannabe take the seat into which he was voted. "Can we allow a man to hold this honor when he's publicly professed a philosophy that would turn all of America's Precious Children into crack whores?"

Jennifer | December 4, 2008, 2:08pm | #

Also, the local rank-and-file are the ones who voted for this jackass in the first place.

Ben Rushing | December 4, 2008, 2:12pm | #

Let's get to the repub's real fear on this guy...


The Democrat's attacks on republicans as racist will stick if they don't try to surgically remove racist tumors like this idiot before the Dems diagnose it as cancer.

/Dems have the racist history, and had James Byrd.
// Paying people that you once oppressed with tax payer money absolves them of their past
///Anyone remember Mark Folley?

Antony | December 4, 2008, 2:14pm | #

Alan: "A tad cynical maybe, but good PR, and that is the nature of politics.

I understand what you are saying, but isn't the 'nature of politics' the main problem? If The People are to rediscover the principles behind Liberty, don't we need to demonstrate those principles and explain them?

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 2:35pm | #

On the other hand the free market works slowely, but is indisputably fair.

I tend to agree that it *tends* to be fair in many circumstances. But..."indisputably"? Really?

The only circumstance in which a free market is actually indisputably fair is that in which *all* the market agents have the same starting position. Care to point out a time when this was ever the case?

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 2:37pm | #

...What's to stop them from doing the same thing to guys with the wrong views on anything else?

Absolutely nothing. They are a private org., and they can be precisely as stupidly unfair as they want to be.

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 2:43pm | #

If you don't hold people equally to a standard of conduct, what is the point in being anti-racist?

Because moral absolutism does not preclude cultural relativism (it only precludes it if you argue that culture does not contain large quantities of adiaphora, which it clearly does. Eating with forks is not morally worse or better than eating with chopsticks, for example.)

As such, the cultural tinge of the medium makes it hard to tease out the intact message if the culture of the speaker differs from the listener. Learning the import of terms in their use-context is critical, especially keeping in mind that situations can be further complicated by different cultures using the same language in different ways.

Lucifer | December 4, 2008, 2:47pm | #

What if it was Hitler instead of Satan?

This marginalization is really starting to piss me off. Adolf is a fucking newb compared to what I've done to/for mankind.

Have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste.

Jennifer | December 4, 2008, 2:52pm | #

Absolutely nothing. They are a private org., and they can be precisely as stupidly unfair as they want to be.

A private organization with quasi-governmental authority granted by said government. I'd be far more cavalier about this situation if we weren't talking about one of only two political parties in America that can put candidates on public ballots without having to jump through multiple hoops to get them there. When I voted for president last month, here in Connecticut, the libertarians weren't even on the ballot because they didn't meet whatever rules the government sets up to restrict ballot access.

To clarify: I am NOT calling for an end to the political party system, but I AM calling for an end to the system wherein the government gives some parties advantages that others don't get. Meanwhile, saying "Fuck it, they're a private organization" doesn't sit well with me when they still manage to benefit from what amounts to a government-enforced duopoly limiting the candidates we can choose from during public elections.

Brandybuck | December 4, 2008, 2:57pm | #

I'm going to make a wild guess that Derek ran as a "Ron Paul Republican", and got overwhelming support from Ron Paul supporters. Did I hit close to the mark? That's the problem with personality cults, it switches off minds.

kwais | December 4, 2008, 3:01pm | #

Elemenope | December 4, 2008, 2:35pm | #

On the other hand the free market works slowely, but is indisputably fair.

I tend to agree that it *tends* to be fair in many circumstances. But..."indisputably"? Really?

The only circumstance in which a free market is actually indisputably fair is that in which *all* the market agents have the same starting position. Care to point out a time when this was ever the case?


Ever hear of the theory that if you took all the money and riches, and distributed it equally amongst the populace. That shortly therafter, the wealth would pretty much return to the thw way it was before you took and redistributed it?

Something like that.

Remove government interference, and government medling in the economy, and punishing taxes, I think would give disadvantaged people way more chance of making wrongs right, than giving government the task of deviding people into groups and attempting to advance the lot of some of those groups.

Darel | December 4, 2008, 3:07pm | #

Dr.Paul has said that he would not return the funds but for that matter look at the good a good man can do for good reasons given from a slim bag.

alan | December 4, 2008, 3:28pm | #

As such, the cultural tinge of the medium makes it hard to tease out the intact message if the culture of the speaker differs from the listener. Learning the import of terms in their use-context is critical, especially keeping in mind that situations can be further complicated by different cultures using the same language in different ways.

When I explain to you that Reverend Wright's behavior on the pulpit is beneath the dignity of the position he holds and reflects poorly on his congregation, you understand what I mean; when I explain that Reverend Wright's behavior on the pulpit is beneath the dignity of the position he holds and reflects poorly on his congregation anyone reading this blog understands what I mean; when I explained that Reverend Wright's behavior on the pulpit was beneath the dignity of the position he holds and reflects poorly on the individual members of his congregation, my African-American colleague who asked me in June what I thought about Wright understood what I meant. You are parsing the word 'culture' to mean something that has more power over the mind of individuals than their own human capacity to understand, and ultimately that is condescending to them.

Lefiti | December 4, 2008, 4:07pm | #

I'm back. Somebody lifted the ban.

a priori | December 4, 2008, 4:58pm | #

Wouldn't it be nice for Weigel to mention in these things he writes the fact that Ron Paul accepted neither corporate nor government funding?

Or does this just further prove that the racist doctor *is* willing to be a tool of the special *racist* interests?

And should a campaign have to run an ideological test on each and every small donation made through electronic transaction on a website?

Perhaps a candidate who gets neither money nor votes, like Bob Barr, can afford such a measure. Wait--has anyone found out if Barr accepted racist contribution as a Republican rep. from (!) Georgia? I'm sure Weigel is on it. Also sure he's gonna investigate Obama's $600 million right after.

But would accepting dirty racist currency (Confederate gold?) be a worse sin than voting for the Patriot Act? Or Iraq? Isn't voting to kill innocent brown people a racist thing to do? Even if Bob Barr does it? If Paul starts voting to kill brown people, can we nominate him for LP party in 2012? Or does he have to give the money back first?

libertymike | December 4, 2008, 5:10pm | #

What happened to the big tent? Unlike many of you here, I view the GOP's actions as spineless-not courageous.

joe | December 4, 2008, 7:21pm | #

alan,

My words are clear and universal in the application of their meaning and lack any pretense that you suggest they have, whether you get them (or pretend not to) is irrelevant to
that fact.

Each of the words, individually, in the phrase you carry the burden of association and are indeed responsible for your support of that person. is clear and universal, but when you put them all together, the problem becomes that there are many possible meanings one can glean from them. What is "the burden of association?" In what way is one "responsible?" What does this responsibility entail.

Nice try, but post Martin Luther, irrelevant. No, not irrelevant at all. Even post-Martin Luther, people join and belong to churches for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with a perfect symmetry between their own beliefs and that of the church.

Sly | December 4, 2008, 7:40pm | #

I am no better and neither are you
We are the same whatever we do
You love me you hate me you know me and then
You can't figure out the bag l'm in
I am everyday people, yeah yeah
There is a long hair that doesn't like the short hair
For bein' such a rich one that will not help the poor one
And different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and scooby dooby doo-bee

GILMORE | December 4, 2008, 7:53pm | #

If I work on Wall St, is that a burden of association with teh evil greedy capitalism?

alan | December 4, 2008, 8:35pm | #

If Obama were to announce tomorrow that his family has picked a new pastor, and that pastor is Pat Robertson, you would not have a problem with that?
Of course you would, we all would, however, Wright is a stain even worse than a fire breathing fundie like Robertson. Not being able to acknowledge the hate mongers that exists on the left, or not being willing to confront them, and thus giving Obama a pass on something that deserved to be confronted before we handed the reigns of the executive branch over to him ought to concern you. It doesn't, I am not shocked, but I wont be shocked when the standards are lowered the next time a
Republican is given the White House front door keys. If they give us, say, a former disciple of Rabbi Meir Kahane (not likely, but considering what is going on in Republican political circles these days not impossible ), you only have yourself to blame for not keeping up your end of the bargain.

alan | December 4, 2008, 8:40pm | #

GILMORE | December 4, 2008, 7:53pm | #
If I work on Wall St, is that a burden of association with teh evil greedy capitalism?

I don't reject all forms of evil GILMORE. Give me a swig of that single malt scotch, a puff on that Cuban cigar, a few C notes from that bailout funny money and I'll be seeing 'Happy Days are Here Again' along with ya!

Related News | December 5, 2008, 12:28am | #

Derek Black's Election to the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee: The Battle Continues
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=547545

Trying to post link | December 5, 2008, 12:29am | #

Derek Black's Election to the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee: The Battle Continues

M. Simon | December 5, 2008, 4:19am | #

Jesus is Ron Paul.

the innominate one | December 5, 2008, 4:50am | #

Ever hear of the theory that if you took all the money and riches, and distributed it equally amongst the populace. That shortly therafter, the wealth would pretty much return to the thw way it was before you took and redistributed it?

relying on an untestable theory (technically, a hypothesis) of a scenario that will never exist doesn't make for a very convincing argument

Blue | December 5, 2008, 6:37am | #

Interesting how this guy gets kicked off the Republican committee, but John Ashcroft, the ultimate white supremacist, had a long political career and continues lobbying under "The Ashcroft Group LLC".

He was associated with Thomas Bugel, a known white supremacist. From Wikipedia: Bugel had been a member of the St. Louis school board vociferously defending segregation, and Ashcroft had been attorney general and governor of Missouri who sided with Bugel.

Lefiti | December 5, 2008, 9:01am | #

I'm starting to wonder if LMNOP and Fluffy ever take their Asperger's meds.

ANON | December 5, 2008, 10:39am | #

Reason really has it in for Ron Paul...bringing this up is ridiculous...particularly making the RP tie in...

Rabbit | December 7, 2008, 7:52pm | #

I think your all a bunch of brainless hater's!
And please stay away from New Hampshire, we are fine without the likes of all of you. And as for your statement Elemenope.....I would rather hug a drug addict or a prostitute! They only hurt themselves....racism hurts everyone!

Rabbit