Obama Still Using Rezko Funds

Well Obama is just as bad at Clinton and Ron Paul in his campaign finances… It appears that his camp still has at least $100,000 of  Tony Rezko’s raised funds, including funds from his wife… The rest of the funds come from close friends of Rezko or employees.  Mr. Obama, come clean and relinquish all of these fraudulent funds…

How Much Did an Accused Political Fixer Raise for Obama?

ABCNews.com Review Shows an Additional $100,000 in Rezko-Linked Contributions Not Returned by the Campaign

Barack Obama, Tony Rezko

“We have returned any money that we know was associated to Mr. Rezko,” Obama told Diane Sawyer on Wednesday morning during an appearance on “Good Morning America.” “That is something that if there’s additional information we don’t know about, we’d be happy to return the money.”

The Obama campaign says it has given away more than $85,000 in Rezko-linked contributions since Rezko was indicted on federal fraud and extortion charges in the fall of 2006.

An ABCNews.com review, however, has identified an additional $100,000 in contributions made to Obama from Rezko’s associates that have not been returned, including $19,500 in contributions from Rezko’s wife and employees of Rezko’s business enterprises. The ABCNews.com review includes individuals who have been linked to Rezko in news reports, court documents and public records.

Other news organizations have reviewed Obama’s campaign finance records and have also found Rezko-linked contributions that are more than double what the campaign has publicly acknowledged. The Chicago Sun-Times, which published its review last June, found that “Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle,” and earlier this week the Los Angeles Times reported that it had found that Rezko and his associates had given “Obama more than $200,000 in donations since 1995.”

When asked to respond to the findings, campaign spokesman Bill Burton replied, “We think they are casting a wide net and overestimating.”

But the campaign does acknowledge that it does not have an exact record of money raised by Rezko. Its best estimate of what Rezko has raised is $60,000, including contributions from a fundraiser Rezko held for Obama in 2003. “We don’t have an exact record of the money raised at the event, but we have given to charity all contributions that seemed appropriate to return,” said Burton. “We review our donations and where there are questions, we make decisions about donating to charity those which, in the circumstances, do not seem appropriate to retain.”

The Chicago Sun-Times reported on Saturday that Obama was the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a court filing in the Rezko case last month. The court document accuses Rezko of funneling money from a kickback scheme to Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign through an associate. Obama is not accused of any wrongdoing in the document, according to the Sun-Times.

Obama has known Rezko for more than 15 years. Much of the scrutiny surrounding their relationship has centered around a real estate deal involving Obama’s home on the South Side of Chicago. Obama says he approached Rezko for “advice” as he sought to purchase the house in 2005. The owner of the house was trying to sell a neighboring vacant lot as a part of the deal, Obama later told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford to buy the lot because “it was already a stretch to buy the house.”

Rezko’s wife purchased the vacant lot and later sold a part of it to Obama to expand his yard. Obama has since called his decision to involve Rezko in the deal “a bone-headed mistake.”

Obama is not the only presidential candidate who has had to face questions surrounding contributions linked to a fundraiser. Sen. Hillary Clinton returned more than $850,000 in cash linked to her fundraiser Norman Hsu, after it was revealed that Hsu was a wanted fugitive.

Now for those Obama supporters that are to naive to understand this, Obama claimed he did not know about Rezko’s reputation when he initially accepted his donations, however now there is no excuse

After ABC News cited a December 2006 Washington Post story about Sen. Barack Obama’s knowledge of legal problems faced by his friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the Obama campaign complained that the Post story mischaracterized what Obama had told the Washington Post reporter.

The Post reported that “Obama said that he was unaware of Rezko’s brewing troubles in 2005,” at the time Obama called Rezko about a real estate deal. Washington Post assistant managing editor Bill Hamilton told ABC News it stood by its reporter’s story.

“Our story was accurate and the Obama campaign never raised any questions before,” he said.

Obama’s knowledge of the extent of the investigation of Rezko, now under federal indictment, is important because it raises questions about his judgment in approaching a man who was under federal investigation.

The Post reported that Obama said he “should have seen some red flags” Here is the full transcript of what Obama said to the Post, as provided by the Obama campaign:

Peter Slevin, Washington Post reporter: You must have been aware he was under investigation, no?

Barack Obama: Well, I’ll be honest with you. I’ve known him for 20 years — well, let me make sure I’m not exaggerating here, 1991, so, 15 years, I’ve known him for 15 years. He had never asked me to do anything, had never behaved in any untoward way with me. And, the, you know, I wasn’t particularly knowledgeable about these various issues that he was involved with, but as I’ve said before, there’s no doubt that I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him. Again, my focus was just making sure that the purchase itself met ethical guidelines, but there’s no doubt that the optics of it I think – partly – well, no, I’ll just stick to that, there’s no doubt I should have been more attuned to it.

Slevin: Did you know that he was having trouble then, what was in the newspapers?

Obama: Well, the way — I was aware of what was in the newspapers, but I certainly was not aware of the serious charges that have subsequently been brought. I had no idea that those kinds of issues would be raised.

Obama also told the Washington Post and other reporters that while his contact with Rezko had been entirely legal, he made “a bone-head mistake” to approach Rezko about a personal business deal because it could appear to be improper.

Ron Paul – Another David Duke In A Suit?

The New Republic has done some deep digging into past “newsletters” and actions of Ron Paul and found some interesting information that anyone considering and anyone already supporting Paul should pay careful attention to. Someone had posted a comment in the post about Don Black’s support and Paul’s refusal to give it back, that it was a smear tactic on the Black’s part and that the poster did not even know who Don Black was before this (implying that Ron Paul did not know who he was). Paul is a support of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights and believes that the Amendments are not valid, as he argues that the Civil War should not have occured.

Pay close attention to this article and you will see that Ron Paul is nothing more than another David Dukes. I have no doubt he willingly took the donation from Black, knowing full well who he was. I would also take a stab in the dark that he has a copy of the picture for his personal memories… He has built up racism and bigoty dating quite a ways back…

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a “formidable stander on constitutional principle,” while The Nation praised “his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq.” Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC’s Jake Tapper described the candidate as “the one true straight-talker in this race.” Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to “dismiss the passion he’s tapped.”

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling–dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission’s plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon–but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

Paul’s newsletters have carried different titles over the years–Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report–but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report‘s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

To understand Paul’s philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a “distinguished counselor.” The institute has also published his books.

The politics of the organization are complicated–its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described “anarcho-capitalist” who viewed the state as nothing more than “a criminal gang”–but one aspect of the institute’s worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods’s book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.” Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the “War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists”; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, “We’ll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it.” Paul’s newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that “the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society” and that “there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it.”

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute–including Paul–may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history–the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, “There are too many libertarians in this country … who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, … find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought.”

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.'” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author–presumably Paul–wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters’ commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa’s transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara”; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending “South African Holocaust.”

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.


Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul’s newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Representative William Dannemeyer–who advocated quarantining people with AIDS–praising him for “speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine “who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter–again, presumably Paul–complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.” “Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, “Bring Back the Closet!” Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, “Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals.”

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,” and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted “a well-known Libertarian editor” as saying, “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?” Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to “poison the blood supply.” “Am I the only one sick of hearing about the ‘rights’ of AIDS carriers?” a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” which is false. Paul’s newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague–also based upon the casual-transmission thesis–and defended “parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims.” Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that “gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense,” adding: “[T]hese men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners.” Also, “they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.”

The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul’s Investment Letter called Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and a 1990 newsletter discussed the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.” Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

Paul’s newsletters didn’t just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia–specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and ’90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed “Ten Militia Commandments,” describing “the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” It warned militia members that they were “possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance” and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama–among them, “You can’t kill a Hydra by cutting off its head,” “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul’s obsession with the “industrial-banking-political elite” and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations–organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and “fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests” for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called “one of the saddest events in the history of the United States.” A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by “patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson”–as one of the newsletters called her–who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: “I can’t vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police’s tricks and crimes,” the newsletter said, adding, “Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL.”


When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted “various levels of approval” to what appeared in his publications–ranging from “no approval” to instances where he “actually wrote it himself.” After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because “Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.”

In other words, Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically–or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point–over the course of decades–he would have done something about it.

What’s more, Paul’s connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones–whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos”–estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.

Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul’s congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society. Christian Reconstructionists share common ground with libertarians, since both groups dislike the central government. North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment–because “the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost.” North is perhaps best known for Gary North’s Remnant Review, a “Christian and pro free-market” newsletter. In a 1983 letter Paul wrote on behalf of an organization called the Committee to Stop the Bail-Out of Multinational Banks (known by the acronym CSBOMB), he bragged, “Perhaps you already read in Gary North’s Remnant Review about my exposes of government abuse.”


Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week’s Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a “straight-talker.”

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges–that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called “Barbara Morondon,” Eleanor Holmes Norton is a “black pinko,” Donna Shalala is a “short lesbian,” Ron Brown is a “racial victimologist,” and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a “far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist.” Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.

Corrections: This article originally misidentified ABC’s Jake Tapper as Jack. In addition, Paul was a surgeon in the Air Force, not the Army, as the piece originally stated. It also stated that David Duke competed in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. In fact, he was a Republican candidate in an open primary. The article has been corrected.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic.

Black Support For Ron Paul

Previously it was revealed that Ron Paul had accepted donations from Stormfront’s White Supremisist leader Don Black… Well now a couple of pictures from the Event in Florida have surfaced with Ron Paul and his Black support… Don and Derek Black… This photo op is more damning than Hillary’s Arafat shoot…

Ron Paul’s Photo-Op with Stormfront

Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 3:53:50 pm PST

An LGF reader emailed this photograph, showing Ron Paul at the Values Voters Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale on September 17, 2007. Immediately to Paul’s left: Don Black, the owner of neo-Nazi hate site Stormfront. If anyone knows who the creepy guy in the hat is, please post a comment.

Update: it’s Derek Black, Don’s son.

UPDATE at 12/20/07 5:17:22 pm:

Here’s another picture from the same event, showing Ron Paul signing an autograph for Derek Black:

UPDATE at 12/20/07 9:48:41 pm:

And if you’re wondering where these photos came from, here’s the source: Stormfront. (Google redirect page.) They were apparently taken by Stormfront member Jamie Kelso, with a Canon PowerShot SD1000 camera.

Note that Paul has refused to relinquish the donation from Don Black and actually recently defended his stance on keeping it…
It would appear to me that Ron Paul is trying to play popular anti-Israel card to gain votes… He must see this lobby as the main stream voting group right now…

My Enemy’s Enemy Is My Friend – Ron Paul 2008

It seems that Ron Paul has attracked another interesting support group. I recent posted on WasteOfMyOxygen about Muslim extremists in the US who support Paul, now I am posting about how Neo-Nazi White Supremists are supporting him. Now this may seem odd to many as the obvious would dictate that the Neo-Nazi’s would not want the Muslim extremists in the US and the same goes for the Muslim extremists, however this fundemental principal is the old method of fighting the greater evil, in this case Jews. I suspect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be the next big campaign funder for and trumpet blower for Mr. Paul as he did host earlier this year, the Holocaust Deniers Reunion… I am sure many of the members and leaders of the groups outlined below were participants…

Maybe Mr. Paul can get a good voter turnout if he has Ahmadinejad run as his Vice President… Then the will definetly get the Muslim and KKK votes. A whole new meaning to the “White” House.

Mr. Paul needs to look at his supporters, and sources of funding and take a moral stance to determine whether or not he will run his campaign using funding from individuals and groups with this much racist and bigoted background.

Americans need to really think about if Ron Paul is the best candidate for our next President, considering his base of supports he is gaining, there must be something of his character and past political agenda that is attracking the likes of them. He is openly against supporting Israel in any capacity and has made that quite clear, however how far will he go to remove support from Israel. He open supports complete withdrawal of the US military from Islamic countries, how much damage will result from our complete removal and how much power will the extremist Terrorist gain in the world. How much weaponary and how large of a force will they build to attack America again.

Mr. Paul needs to reevaluate the people funding him and return the money immediately. Don’t be a Hillary and wait until it makes the mainstream liberal media to do so.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

By Andrew Walden

When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: “such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, “When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don’t believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society.”

Ron Paul is different.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls — 7% of the vote in New Hampshire — but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.

Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul’s apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups’ public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 “patriot money-bomb plot.”

On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an “Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul” on TownHall.com. It reads:

Dear Congressman Paul:
Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.
Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?
More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation’s leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the “comforts and amenities” provided for inmates of Auschwitz.
Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?
As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?
As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.
Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.

There is more. The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul. The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week. Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges. Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered. Not Paul.

Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls. Wrote Siederaski November 9: “Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews.” [Update] Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.

Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation. Just below links to information about the “BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting“, and the “BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting“, Stormfront.org website announced: “Ron Paul for President” and “Countdown to the 5th of November”. The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site. Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.

Finally on October 30 Paul’s campaign came back with a non-response. In a phone interview with the Lone Star Times, Ron Paul national communications director Jesse Benton was non-committal about removing the donations link from Stormfront.org. After a week of internet controversy, the best Benton could come up with is:

“We hadn’t thought of these options but I’ll bring up these ideas with the campaign director. Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken. I doubt there is anything we can do legally. Tracking donations that came from Stormfront’s site sounds more complicated. I’m concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation. It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn’t solicit this support, and we aren’t interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue. We want to focus on Dr. Paul’s positive agenda for freedom.”

Perhaps frustrated by the weasel words, Lone Star Times asked Benton: “Bottom line- Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?”

Benton’s response:

“At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black’s contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days.”

On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying:

“Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you’re a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another 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.”

As of November 11–the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront. No IP address has been blocked. Stormfront’s would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul’s campaign.

The white supremacists do more than raise funds. Blogger Adam Holland reports:

“one of Rep. Paul’s top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka ‘White Will’). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce‘s National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S.”

Pierce is author of the racist “Turner Diaries”. When the Lone Star Times exposed the $500 Don Black donation, Williams responded on the national Ron Paul meetup site,

“Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters’ demands?”

The mild responses to Williams’ MeetUp post make a sharp contrast to the hatred and invective with which Paul supporters respond to Medved or any other writer questioning Paul’s refusal to disassociate himself from his racist supporters. Any other campaign would presume Williams’ expression of anti-Semitism was a dirty trick by an opposing campaign. Williams would have been hurriedly denounced and booted out of the campaign. Not Ron Paul.

Williams has also organized at least one other discussion, “the Israel factor revisited” on the national Ron Paul MeetUp site. Again the measured tone of the remarks by Ron Paul supporters in the comments section contrasts sharply with the invective Paul supporters rain down upon bloggers who oppose him. Paul’s campaign relies heavily on MeetUp sites to organize. Over 61,000 Paul supporters are registered on MeetUp as compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich and only a couple of dozen members for most other candidates.

On the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network, Williams links to Paul’s “grassroots” fundraising site and organizes other racists to “game You Tube” to advance a specific Ron Paul video to the top of You Tube’s rankings. Writes Williams, “Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his niggerberry.” Holland points out, “BJB” stands for “burn Jew burn”. BJB’s internet signature is, “Nothing says lovin’ like a Jew in the oven.”

Williams is not Paul’s only supremacist supporter. “Former” KKK leader (and convicted fraudster) David Duke’s website http://www.whitecivilrights.com/, calls Ron Paul “our king” and cheers while “Ron Paul Hits a Home Run on Jay Leno Show.” Duke also includes a “Ron Paul campaign update” and plugs Ron Paul fundraising efforts. These articles are posted right next to articles such as “Ten reasons why the Holocaust is a fraud” and “Germans Still Remember their Historical Greatness“-featuring a map of Hitler’s Third Reich at its 1942 military height, just in case anybody doesn’t get the point. Apparently “Dr. Paul’s positive agenda for freedom” is attractive to those who ape the world’s worst tyrants and genocidaires.

There are others. In a You Tube video circulating the internet, Ron Paul is endorsed by Hutton Gibson, a leading Holocaust denier and father of controversial actor and director Mel Gibson.

Ron Paul is supported by Patrick Buchanan, whose website carries videos and articles such as: “Ron Paul epiphany” and “Ron Paul a new hope.” Buchanan has a long history of remarks some call anti-Semitic (see link). Ron Unz, editor of Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine, is a Paul contributor and may have helped raise money from Silicon Valley sources. Ron Paul’s American Free Press supporters run literally from one end of the country to the other:

There is more to the Paul campaign than racists. The mis-named 9-11 “truth” movement has also been a big source of Paul support. The Detroit Free Press describes the scene as Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani shared the ferry ride back from a Mackinac Island Michigan Republican caucus September 21.

“According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: ‘9/11 was an inside job’ and ‘Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?’ — an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, (MI) said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harassed him as he took shelter in the ferry’s pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City.”

Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton told the Detroit Free Press “Ron Paul does not think that 9/11 was an inside job.” But the “truthers” aren’t fooled. Paul’s committee paid 9-11 conspiracy nut and talk-show host Alex Jones $1300. Jones claims the payment is a partial refund after he over paid August 27 when giving Paul a $2300 contribution. Aaron Dykes of Alex Jones’ company Magnolia Management and Alex Jones’ Infowars website gave Ron Paul $1600. Jones has been pumping Paul’s campaign on his nationally syndicated radio show for months. Alex Jones got Paul’s first radio interview January 17 after announcing his Presidential campaign. LINK: http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3. In a lengthy October 5 interview — apparently Paul’s fourth with Jones — Paul thanks Jones for his support saying: “You and the others have always said run, run, run.” Alex Jones’ websites are piled with Ron Paul articles and campaign paraphernalia for sale.

Other Paul donations and activists come from leftists and Muslims. Singer and Democrat contributor Barry Manilow is also a Ron Paul contributor and possibly a fundraiser. There are close ties (but no endorsements) between Ron Paul’s San Francisco Bay Area campaign and Cindy Sheehan’s long-shot Congressional campaign.

An Austin, TX MeetUp site shows Paul supporters also involved in leftist groups such as Howard Dean’s “Democracy for America.” MeetUp lists other sites popular with members of the Ron Paul national MeetUp group. The number one choice is “9/11 questions” another leading choice is “conspiracy.”

MuslimVoterOnPaul.com chimes in writing:

“Brothers and Sisters, please vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. It’s our obligation to come together and try to stand up for not only our best interests, but the best interests of the entire Ummah.”

A Ron Paul flyer directed at Muslims reads: “Who is Ron Paul and why does the Jerusalem Post call him crazy?” A “Muslims for Paul” bumper sticker puts the Islamic crescent in Paul’s name.

The ugly mishmash of hate groups backing Paul has a Sheehan connection as well. David Duke is a big Cindy Sheehan supporter eagerly proclaiming “Cindy Sheehan is right” after Sheehan said, “My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.” Stormfront.org members joined Sheehan at her protest campout in Crawford, TX and posed with her for photos. Sheehan is also intimately associated with the Lew Rockwell libertarian website which has posted over 200 articles by Ron Paul as well as some “scholarly” 9-11 conspiracy theories.

The white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan’s Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988. Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.

Medved’s questions surprise many, but they shouldn’t. Paul’s links the anti-Semites and white supremacists continue a trend which has been developing since the 9-11 attacks. Barely six weeks after 9-11, Paul was already busy blaming America. On October 27, 2001 Paul wrote on LewRockwell.com, “Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11”. Paul complained: “often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic.” He says the US is “bombing Afghanistan” and is upset nobody is interested in his solution:

“It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks.”

Paul is quick to blame the victim when the issue is Islamist violence. But when it comes to ordinary criminal violence, Paul once blamed “95% of black males.” During Paul’s 1996 Congressional campaign a Houston Chronicle article raised questions about a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter article. Under Ron Paul’s name was written: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.’ Paul added: “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Texas Monthly later interviewed Paul. He claims:

“They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'”

Adds Texas Monthly:

“It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.”

Paul defenders often point to a December 24, 2002 Paul essay, “What really divides us?” Wrote Paul,

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.”

What his supporters don’t often mention is that Paul deployed this fine rhetoric only in defense of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). Lott was pilloried in the press for his flattering words about the segregationist 1948 Presidential run of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

Responding to rioting in Los Angeles under the heading “Terrorist Updates”, Paul’s 1992 article exposes a double standard. Substitute the words “Islamist terrorism” for “riots” and try to imagine Paul using this language:

“The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for “discharging a firearm within city limits.” Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.“Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones.”

If one forgets the implication that the US treasury is a “white checking account” or the suggestion that all “underclass blacks” are thugs, it seems that Paul believes that appeasing street criminals “will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate.” But when it comes to the Islamist terror, Paul’s message, now the theme of his Presidential campaign is: “our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks.”

The double standard raises questions. Paul’s real motivation for appeasing Islamists may be underlined in quotes from a May 24, 1996 Congress Daily article:

“Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, ‘By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government’ and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.”

“Ron Paul-America’s Last Chance”, a January, 2007 article by Ted Lang on the anti-Semitic site Rense.com, makes a familiar argument for supporting Paul. Lang claims,

“Dr. Paul’s best credentials are those identifying him as a true libertarian, meaning a ‘classical liberal’ of the anti-Federalist genre of libertarians that helped found this country, true liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams….”

Paul himself writing on antiwar.com says:

“Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated: ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…’ which is, ‘one of the essential principles of our government’. The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?”

Perhaps Paul forgets America’s 1801-05 war with the Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Pirates? Paul’s interpretation of American history is false. This writer explained in “The Colonial War against Islam”:

“In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.'”

Apparently Paul chooses to remember only the parts of American history which benefit his arguments. As part of the War on Terror Paul wants the US to abandon, the US Navy is on duty fighting Islamic pirates off the coast of Somalia, in the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia.

In spite of official silence from the Paul Campaign, hordes of Paul supporters lit up the comments section of Michael Medved’s open letter on TownHall.com. In a phenomenon familiar to any blogger who posts information negative to Paul, the 500-plus comments include several which indicate that Medved has got Paul’s supporters dead to rights:

  • “Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved! Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?”
  • “I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried.”
  • “You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel.”
  • “Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably.”
  • “It’s patently obvious why you don’t support Dr. Paul: He’s not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party.”

Over at Liberty Post, a self-described “Christian Zionist” identifying himself as ‘David Ben-Ariel’ adds this response:

“If discredited and paranoid Michael Medved is so concerned about it, let him actually follow his Judaism to the Jewish Homeland of Israel and take the treacherous ACLU and its liberal ilk, and every other self-hating, defeatist, godless group and loathsome organization with him. What’s he got to lose, especially if he fails to believe the Israeli oligarchy is under German-Jesuit control and guilty of murdering Yitzhak Rabin? … I’m voting for Ron Paul.”

Besides the Paul backers whose words seem to provide backing to Medved’s case, others complain that it is wrong to question the sources of Paul’s support. Writing on the “Daily Paul”, Mike Bergmaier complains it is “unfair” for Medved to demand Paul renounce the support of anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis. Really? Why?

Lew Rockwell attempts to respond to Medved’s question by echoing leftist themes equating Nazis with mainstream conservatives. Rockwell argues Medved should renounce Cheney and Bush. In a weak effort at verbal judo, Rockwell calls Medved’s letter a “neocon libel.” Rockwell continues:

“Mr. Medved, will you repudiate belligerent nationalists, drooling torturers, scheming warmongers, redistributing pressure groups, foreign aid thieves… (etc)”

and then without even pausing to catch his breath accuses Medved of practicing “guilt by association.”

Perhaps Rockwell hopes weak-minded readers will not notice that associating Medved with “drooling torturers” is itself “guilt by association.” No “drooling torturers” have been identified among Medved’s financial backers but actual neo-Nazis have been identified by name amongst Paul’s. Is this what passes for scholarship at the Ludwig von Mises Institute headed by Rockwell? Judging from many of the comments Paul supporters have flooded the internet with, it apparently is good enough for them.

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Daily Paul, Paul’s “fair” supporters are organizing to call radio stations and demand they yank Medved’s show, thus demonstrating that censorship is a Libertarian value.

Neither Paul nor his campaign has officially responded to the questions raised by Medved. But then perhaps these types of comments are the official response.

Paul supporters complain endlessly that the “mainstream media” is censoring or ignoring their candidate. They should be careful what they ask for. If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions. Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.

Ron Paul For Ayatollah

I found this post quite interesting, especially considering where the first references the recent debate in  Dearborn, MI an area of this country that has been quite supportive of terrorism, especially against Israel

-Non-Intervention, unless it benefits the terrorists. If the vote had been against Israel instead of the known Terrorist Organization Hezbollah, this would be a completely different view…

-Pull all US troops from Muslim Lands, which lands exactly are Muslim Lands, oh the ones where the majority are Muslim? Or the ones where there is a single Muslim… Next they will demand no US troops in the US…

-Muslim American Interests, are the different than Non-Muslim American Interests? How so, oh, support for terrorists, no support for Israel… Shouldn’t Muslim American interests be the same as every Americans Interests.

-Non Isolationist & Non Intervention, well lets see, if we do not intervene, then we are isolationists, however if we do not isolate ourselves, we are then Intervening… Good use of logic here…

-This post is a call for Muslims to support Ron Paul because he would benefit them, however near the end, she posts that his supporters support the right to bear arms and it would be interesting to see what happened if he won and got the Hamas treatment, so already she is calling for muslims to take up arms against the rest of American. Yes I guess American interests are different than Muslim American Interests.

-Let’s not forget that the politically correct way of saying Jew Hating is Anti-Zionism

From the bloggers about page:


Maria Hussain is interested in exploring Zionism as a mental corruption which can be cured.

No Comments »

Now, Ron Paul is probably one of the better candidates running, however this post is really anti-semitism masked in a political gift-wrapping…

Muslims discover Ron Paul

Filed under: Blogroll— mariahussain @ 3:41 am

After the Republican debate on Tuesday evening in Dearborn, Mich., a reporter from the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term “Islamic fascism.”

“It’s a false term to make people think we’re fighting Hitler,” Paul responded. “It’s war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread.”

The call has gone out to all the Muslim Americans to hurry up and register to vote Republican so that they can vote in the Republican Primary to support Ron Paul, the anti-interventionist, non-isolationist candidate for President of the United States. Muslims are opening their wallets and joining teaparty07.com as well.

An anonymous Ron Paul supporter posted the following message on the internet: “Muslims and Americans have an unique window of opportunity for the 2008 election. There is a candidate running as a Republican that would work to completely cut off the funding to Israel, remove ALL US troops from Arab lands, and repeal the Patriot Act. He’s a Republican with Libertarian views named Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s policies ranging from monetary to foreign are top notch. Till now Muslims and Americans have not had an American Presidential candidate that really suited their best interests. This election is unique in that we have a man running as a Republican that speaks the truth…We know the current policies in the Middle East are failing, not only making it less safe in the world but hurting and killing innocent Muslims, which our media callously calls collateral damage. It is our duty as Muslims to follow the truth regardless of how futile it may seem. Ron Paul is the only candidate that does not seem to be swayed by the influential lobbies that the other candidates are catering to.”

Ron Paul stood up in Congress in 2006 and opposed a resolution that sided with Israel in the Lebanon-Israel conflict. He stated the following.

Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.”

Ron Paul has also sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act. He is one of the few members of Congress from either of the major houses that is speaking rationally about these issues. How can we get everyone, and I mean everyone, to join the Ron Paul Republican voter sign-up campaign?

There is general frustration with politicians these days, and the unwillingness to believe that supporting a particular candidate will make a difference. But whether Ron Paul wins or loses, ronpaul.meetup.com is a great way to meet your neighbors who are against the war and organize the community on a grassroots level. If something like Katrina ever happened to us, knowing our neighbors could mean the difference between life and death to our families.

The common thread I’ve been reading lately about leftists and Jews is that they are having trouble getting more than a dozen people to come to their stuff (whether anti-Zionist or Zionist). The anti-Israel movement is not moving forward, because “protest Zionist imperialism” is just not a catchy slogan. By contrast, there are over 400 RP activists against war taxes in Boston alone. Every day the list of passionate anti-war activists grows. Very few of them agree with every single RP position, they just want to get the Lobby out of the way and pull the troops out of Iraq.

One reason it’s working is because of the software. They made the ronpaul.meetup.com site almost like a dating site, where you can make friends with people in or near your zip code. They made it very easy to get together with new people to join the activism. You can’t beat technology, may as well use it.

In the event that RP actually won the election and got the Hamas treatment, his supporters are fully in support of the Right to Bear Arms. It would be interesting to see what followed.

If anti-war protesters want to continue to focus on the genocidal machinations of the global zionist-imperialist military, industrial, financial, political, neoliberal, media complex, they have to be willing to meet with anyone any time to hear what ideas people have to address this, which is our primary responsibility – even if they are Republicans.

If you ever saw Ron Paul in an interview it cannot be said that he avoids discussing vital issues. He is someone who is willing to make a statement and stick by it even when no one agrees with him. I don’t “believe” in electoral politics but it’s not that much sweat off my brow to go and vote to end war.

I think the fact that NO pro-Israel group will let Ron Paul speak at their convention, not even peace Zionists, is evidence enough that he is the only person to put in charge as commander-in-chief. And, even if he loses, making all these contacts with local anti-interventionists is priceless. If you want to expand the peace movement so that it overlaps with the freedom movement like ripples in a pond, you just have to respect the fact that people might agree with you, but for different reasons.


Just to give you an idea about the writer who posted this blog here is another exert from her which displays her racism and bigotry… Now she does obviously support Ahmadinejad… So the Ayatollah concept is not a far stretch for her…

Self-Hating Jews vs Ahmadinejad

Filed under: Blogroll— mariahussain @ 1:43 am

I signed my kids up for Arabic lessons recently and, having lived before in an orthodox Jewish town in New Jersey, I noticed something somewhat interesting. Arab mothers of young children weigh on average 20-30 pounds less than your average Jewish mother of young children and not only that, their posture is astonishingly better. In other words, Arab ladies are so much prettier and more self-confident than Jewish ladies in the same station of life. Not only that but their facial expressions are so much different. Orthodox Jewish women walk around not only slumped over, but scowling with a tense frown on their faces. They seem so discouraged, and seem to give off the vibe of being unloved and unwanted at home. All they do I suppose is wash dishes obsessive-compulsively and spend their Fridays ripping up pieces of toilet paper in preparation for the Sabbath, so life must be pretty dull in comparison to the Arabs who actually enjoy their weekends partying with their families and friends.

The other difference is the men. I was going through a divorce when I was living in New Jersey and although it may sound pathetic, I really enjoyed all the attention I got from the Jewish men. I guess with my 26 inch waist, and my upright posture I was a goddess compared to the orthodox Jewish ladies but the impression I got from the Jewish men’s response to my good looks was that all Jewish males are sexually available, whether or not they are married. They used to stop their cars just to watch me cross the street. By contrast, Arab men just seem like people. Freshly showered, nice guys, but not even thinking about “that.”

So, when people talk about self-hating Jews, who is self-hating? I can’t imagine that an overweight woman married to a man who so obviously wishes he could have a Muslim lady as a second wife could have a very positive outlook on life. Not to mention that Jewish men consider cheating on their wife with a non-Jewish lady to “not count” as adultery, not to mention how they lie to their wives as obsessive-compulsively as Jewish women wash their dishes. Suppressing all that guilt about Israeli violence against Palestinians must be a constant downer too. I think no one hates themselves as much as Zionist women so no wonder they are the most vicious people on the planet. I tend to blame all the problems in this world on Jewish women, since the men are doormats who obey their wives or at least pretend to obey their wives. But what’s new. There are more Jewish women marrying hot Palestinian men in “Israel” than there are marriages between Ashkenazim and Arab Jews. It’s over for the Zionist project.

So anyway, how about President Ahmedinejad’s speech at Columbia University? It was so awesome, what I saw on video, and what astonished me most was the warm, thundering applause after every comment he made. I didn’t know there were that many decent Americans out there. Everyone protesting outside was of course a psychotic Jew brainwashed by the David Project. But the thousands of people cheering for Ahmedinejad, who is like the new Bruce Springsteen, really made me feel better about this country. I would not be surprised if scores of people converted to Shia Islam as a result of his really great responses to the hostile questions (I did). He proved himself to be someone with not only great intelligence and wit but saint-like patience. It seemed to me that the Iranian President has more popular support in this country than our own mentally retarded President Bush.

But I was really shocked and disappointed when Congress the next day imposed harsher sanctions on Iran in contempt of the American people, and despite all the rational, intelligent, kind, and good-natured things the Iranian president said the day before.

But what do I expect. I did after all, watch the video of the kid who asked Kerry too many questions getting tasered by the cops. What are we going to do, you guys? There is nowhere to run. Even Europe is controlled by Zionist crazies controlling the media.

It occured to me that maybe what we need is a Swiss solution. Instead of allowing the police to become a hired paramilitary force terrorizing our neighborhoods along with the hoodlums, maybe we should do what the Swiss do. In Switzerland, every town has its own local militia which includes every adult male in the town, all of whom have a machine gun that was given to them for free by the Swiss Army. At the sound of an alarm, within minutes, the men are in position and ready to defend their town. Switzerland never invades other countries, so this hyper-militarism is purely in the interest of self-defense.

Not only that but every family is required to have a bomb shelter stocked with food in their basement and government representatives go door to door making sure that your basement shelter is up to Swiss standards. Given this level of preparedness it is no surprise that the Nazis never bothered trying to take over Switzerland, while the Swiss were hanging out in their bomb shelters eating their chocolate rations provided to them by the government. Maybe it’s time our country got a real government.

Last but not least, it’s Ramadan and most of us admittedly are completely inadequate in our observation but don’t forget the poor. Every act of charity makes a difference. I sponsored a Palestinian orphan some time ago and was astonished by the difference in his photo from one year to the next. When I first got his “annual report” he looked so painfully thin in the photo, but a year later I got a photo of him looking like a regular teenager. Thank God. Nowadays people in Gaza have to buy bottled water to survive, and that is really hard when you have no income. If you don’t know how to send money to Gaza let me know because it’s super easy and the fact is, if you are feeding your own kids on your credit card (like most Americans) you may as well pay for some poor orphan on your credit card as well. And don’t forget the world is not Palestine alone. You can save a child’s life in Africa for just $2. Can you believe that, for the cost of a single beer. So please, I know it’s not the solution for our political problems but the best we can do is keep those wonderful children alive until they grow up so they can take over the world and hopefully do a better job than these aging neocons. Within twenty years all those genocidal fanatics will be dead of natural causes. And what will be left will be hundreds of millions of confused young people. We have to help them survive until that day.

I’m crying now. I know this is not much of an essay but it’s the best I could do. Please, everyone, help the poor children hungry and terrified and alone in this world and save them from the Zionist selfish monsters that want to destroy everything because they know they are finished and they want to take us all down with them, but we can’t let them do that. We have to save this world. It might be a really long time until Jesus (pbuh) comes back. The world is not ending. The truth is much harder. WE have to make it work, we have to find a way to continue life on this planet into the next century and beyond so may God help us.