Ron Paul: Sure, I’ll take money from Nazis
posted at 7:09 pm on December 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Red herrings galore in response to Cavuto asking why he won’t return the $500 donation he got from Stormfront degenerate Don Black. Answer #1: “It’s probably already been spent.” Fortunately, money is fungible. Answer #2: “I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody who sends me money.” No one’s asking him to screen everybody (although major donors would be nice). The fact of Black’s donation was handed to him on a platter by a third party. If outside agents are willing to screen for you gratis, why not avail yourself? Answer #3: If he gives the money back, that’s $500 Black has back to spend on Nazism. In that case, why not re-gift it to a third party? I hear the Wiesenthal Center does good work. Answer #4: “The real evil” is the military/industrial complex. I’ve heard his supporters float this turd of an excuse before and it never fails to irritate me, not because there isn’t plenty evil about special interests but because it requires them to suddenly become very obtuse about the unique contempt with which racism, especially of the white supremacist variety, is regarded in America. We can argue about whether this or that Pentagon project is necessary for defense or just a lucrative money pit for militarists; not much room for argument on Don Black, though. Taking his money is a way of saying yeah, he’s a pig, but not much more of one than Boeing is, really. And even a pig’s got a right to eat, no? A small legitimization but a legitimization nonetheless.
So why not dump the money, particularly given what a small drop it is in the ocean of dough Paul’s swimming in and how his refusal to do so has extended the shelf life of this otherwise unpleasant but minor story? No idea.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I wouldnt dump the money either. No use to care who donates to you unless you are forming your policy around their donations.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Me either. Con doesn’t seem worth the pro – 500 bucks.
Yep, and that can be used for publicity even. I do like that line ‘they send money for my ideas’.
American ‘Empire’ does it for me every time.
Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Why do I have this strange feeling that if the Klan had cut Rudy Giuliani a check at the beginning of the campaign, you’d have been super keen to see him dump it, muyoso?
Allahpundit on December 19, 2007 at 7:16 PM
If he keeps the Nazi money it either means he agrees with the Nazi’s or if he really doesn’t care where his money comes from he’s as big a political whore as Hillary. Simple and straightforward.
Buzzy on December 19, 2007 at 7:18 PM
@ Allahpundit on December 19, 2007 at 7:16 PM
I could care less what Giuliani does. Also, no group like the KKK would ever donate to him. He has more of a chance of getting a donation from NTAC, the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:19 PM
I’ve had that feeling before. It’s just gas.
TexasDan on December 19, 2007 at 7:19 PM
It is more of danger for him to go back on his principals than to appear lily-white (excuse the pun). He is always going to stick to the “my game my rules” philosophy.
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Its the same with the truthers Paul doesnt want to appear to spurn the people who brough him to the big dance.
William Amos on December 19, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Why not give back the money? Libertarian….once the money is mine then it’s mine. Doesn’t matter how I got it, it’s mine. That’ll be $1.24 for standing on my porch and asking questions.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM
I was going to say “Hey, he wants to give me money? Fine, it’s not like I told him I was going to support his cause”, until I read:
Then I thought, “Yeah, that’s good. Or, proably more insulting to Stormfront, give it to the NAACP.”
But the Weisenthal Center is a far more deserving recipient.
Frozen Tex on December 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM
So you thought it was lame when Giuliani handed that Saudi pig back his check for $10 million after 9/11, right?
Allahpundit on December 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG1xq3cJJTs
or a bomb.
mad saint jack on December 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM
@ William Amos on December 19, 2007 at 7:21 PM
http://reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Rudy Giuliani has a history of sending money back much to the chagrin of his numerous opponents in NYC.
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM
@ Allahpundit on December 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM
That is a little bit different and you know it. Right after being attacked, having the people behind the attack hand you a symbolic check which covers not a single level of damage of a single building is not the same as having an undesireable donating to a political campaign because they agree with a couple of policies of the candidate.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:24 PM
So Ron Paul is a nut what else is new ?
William Amos on December 19, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Right, and if that means your campaign is being partially funded by white supremacist neo-nazis, so what?
amerpundit on December 19, 2007 at 7:26 PM
I should add while Paul doesnt say he believes in the 9/11 truth movement that doesnt mean he will stand in front of them and tell them they are wrong.
WQhich like this issue of Nazi money is proof that Ron Paul is more of an egotist than someone with true beliefs. Its all about him
William Amos on December 19, 2007 at 7:27 PM
@ William Amos on December 19, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Huckabee is a nut. Ron Paul is an . . . . eccentric.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:27 PM
He should return it. Principle. Like it or not the GOP may be held to a higher standard. And higher standards shouldn’t be negotiable.
Bradky on December 19, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Ron Paul is nuttier than squirrel poop.
EnochCain on December 19, 2007 at 7:28 PM
The Saudi royal family wasn’t behind the attack at all. In fact, they’re even more hated by Al Qaeda than we are. It was the Saudi prince blaming America, essentially, for the attack that made Giuliani return his check.
Kind of like Ron Paul does, come to think of it.
Allahpundit on December 19, 2007 at 7:28 PM
@ amerpundit on December 19, 2007 at 7:26 PM
.00002%
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:29 PM
@ Allahpundit on December 19, 2007 at 7:28 PM
15/19 were Saudi. Thats enough proof for me.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Why does he insist on keeping the money? He’s a nut. Nutty people do nutty things and have nutty justifications for being nutty.
But then again he doesn’t have to worry about how bad it looks to voters because he knows he can’t win anyways- he’s just in it for the ego boost anyhow.
Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Man I wish I could find that story of when Ron Paul had his November fundraising day.
Crime organizations figured that Paul would be the perfect opportunity to test stolen creditcard numbers. Over 600 Alone from the Dallas Area.
They used each card to give $5 bucks figuring that if it went through they could use the cards to steal more money.
So that was 600 X $5 or $3,000 dollars that were illegally given to Ron Paul’s campign. But I guess since Ron Paul is whats best for America he can keep the money
William Amos on December 19, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Come on. Don’t tell me you are reading Michael Moore’s theories.
Bradky on December 19, 2007 at 7:33 PM
and Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 7:34 PM
@ Bradky on December 19, 2007 at 7:33 PM
eff Michael Moore.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:34 PM
A thing of beauty, that.
$500 from white supremacists is proof enough for me, too.
TexasDan on December 19, 2007 at 7:36 PM
I still think there is something fishy driving all this money Paul’s way.
CP on December 19, 2007 at 7:36 PM
@ TexasDan on December 19, 2007 at 7:36 PM
You were never going to vote for him anyway.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:38 PM
@ CP on December 19, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Its called his message and his stance on issues.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:38 PM
curious that RP is so proud of the fact that he gets a lot of donations from the military, then.
lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:44 PM
@ lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:44 PM
You do know there is a difference between the soldiers, and the companies which are given the money to create the weapons and weaponry for the soldiers right?
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Trained in Afghanistan. How does nationality matter? All 19 have something else in common — what could that be?
lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:45 PM
True. You’re missing the point about “proof” though. The 15/19 proves the Saudi family was behind it? You’re playing right into the stereotype that I, and I suspect others, have of the typical Ron Paul supporter.
TexasDan on December 19, 2007 at 7:47 PM
You are working overtime on not making sense aren’t you?
The soldiers willingly put the desires of “the companies” into action, thereby making them as bad or worse. Right? Yet, he gladly accepts their money and proudly proclaims how much he gets.
Ron Paul. Supported by evil. Apparently.
lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:47 PM
I posted something to this effect in the Headlines thread…he’s pretty well painted himself into a corner now. He can’t give the money back later even if he wanted to without giving up his Captain Principle cred.
Interesting how he’s shifting the terms of the issue though. The issue isn’t in requiring him to screen every single donor, but rather what he’s willing to do when a problem is found.
In the larger sense, this is also a troubling symptom of Paul’s campaign. He’s apparently willing to go to the mattresses over a $500 donation from a white supremacist, basing it on principle. Never mind that the MSM really shouldn’t be given ANOTHER excuse to use “Nazi” and “Republican” in the same sentence. No, Paul’s acting like an entitled brat.
Reagan would have given back the money. That’s why he was The King.
Also, vis a vis Giuliani: It wasn’t so long ago that he returned donations with a 9/11 theme (I believe they were in $9.11 amounts). That’s what principle looks like.
JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 7:47 PM
@ TexasDan on December 19, 2007 at 7:47 PM
15/19 proves to me that there is a large section of the Saudi population which foster anti-American sentiment. Not only anti-American sentiment, but fanaticism. The fact that the Saudis allow this type of fanaticism, much like most other middle eastern countries indicates to me that they are not one of our friends. Then add onto that ALL of the other reasons not to like the Saudis, and I don’t see how it can possibly be a sane position to support the Saudi Family.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:50 PM
He is the prototypical supporter. Instantly agrees with what RP says, without question, and does not bother to take a second to think about it.
lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:51 PM
But I thought that what goes on outside our borders is none of our business.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 7:51 PM
@ JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Are you high? The ONLY reason he gave those donations back is because he got insane heat and bad press from it. He doesnt have principles.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Muyoso. For mind controlling citizens and Ron Paul.
lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Fixed.
Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 7:52 PM
@ Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 7:51 PM
It isnt any of our business militarily, but as to who we choose to have diplomatic and economic relations with, it certainly is our business. MAYBE one of these days you will understand the whole isolationist/non-interventionist thing. This is now the third time I will have explained it to you.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:53 PM
And taking money from freaking Nazis shows principles how?
Slublog on December 19, 2007 at 7:53 PM
If you read that story, Giuliani’s campaign does not accept any donations with 911 in them. It has nothing to do with the press that was received. The campaign immediately shunned it when it was revealed. Ron Paul basks in the white supremacist cash.
lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Am I high? Interesting comeback from the supporter of the candidate who wants to legalize recreational drugs.
Principle demands that he return the money with a not-so-gentle rebuke of the lowlifes who gave it to him, lest they be granted even a micron of credibility.
Flimsy and shifting rationalizations permit him to keep it.
The route that Captain Principle chose is….interesting.
JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 7:54 PM
@ lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Take a look at the last RP thread. I forget who I was having a discussion with, but there were several point and things RP did which I did not agree with. But go ahead and ASSume.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:54 PM
A reliable ally for over sixty years which controls much of the world’s oil supply. But let’s cede it to the Wahabbis and let the radicals and AQ decide how to use the oil revenue and who gets the oil…
Real sane alternative, eh?
Bradky on December 19, 2007 at 7:54 PM
When 15 Saudi citizens blow up our stuff; doesnt it make it our business? Do you support an invasion of SA, given that – in your mind – the royal family supported this attack?
lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:55 PM
@ JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 7:54 PM
As we should. Drugs like Marijuana being illegal is beyond ridiculous. There is NO reason anyone can justify why marijuana is illegal, and cigarettes are legal. One causes cancer, one is TERRIBLE for your health, and one fills your lungs with tar. The ONLY reason you think marijuana should be illegal is because you were told it was illegal. Look into WHY it became illegal, and how many people have died from smoking it.
And DONT dodge the fact that you completely were wrong on the giuliani thing, he is an ass.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Yet Paul has been rather outspoken in wanting to EXPAND diplomatic and economic relations with countries like Iran- and there’s no need to debate whether they are friend or foe.
Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM
@ Bradky on December 19, 2007 at 7:54 PM
OR, work on an alternative fuel before it is MANDATORY to shift to an alternative fuel. But no, why do that when we could rely on a region that is insane.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM
No the Saudi Royal family wasn’t behind the attack. At all? They indirectly (i.e. covertly) provide funds to every jihadist cell on the planet. The KLA are an al-Qaeda affiliate. Who bankrolled jihad in the Balkans from the 1970s onward? Hint: There was a spike in oil revenue around about this time.
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I’m shocked, SHOCKED at this news.
steveegg on December 19, 2007 at 7:58 PM
@ lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 7:55 PM
In this particular case, no, i dont support an invasion of SA. Afghanistan was completely justifiable. However, I have no love for SA, and I think we should work to end relations with them.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I was not completely wrong on the Giuliani thing. I wasn’t even in the same ballpark as wrong, the same league, or even the same game (Thanks, Pulp Fiction!).
Seriously, there’s a cult of personality surrounding Paul and it’s getting more creepy by the day. Perhaps even creepier is his willingness to bask in it.
JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 7:59 PM
So, Afghanistan was innocent (given that SA planned the attack with 15 of their nationals) but deserves to be bombed. SA gets away scott free? What an odd position to find yourself in.
lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 8:00 PM
@ JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 7:59 PM
There absolutely is. Its because people agree with his positions as the most logical, and they know that he actually means what he says.
Unconditional right to keep arms
End to the income tax
End to needlessly defending Europe and South Korea
Federalism!!!!
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I think you forgot “cure cancer” and “end the designated hitter rule” in your bullet points.
JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 8:03 PM
@ lorien1973 on December 19, 2007 at 8:00 PM
I am in an odd position only if I use your fuzzy logic and take the words you put into my mouth as gospel. I never said SA was behind the attack. I said that there were a LOT of saudis which did the attacking. Also, SA gives MASS amounts of money to terrorism based purposes.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:03 PM
@ JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Nice sarcasm. I personally like my candidates to not lie about their positions in order to garner votes. RP has never lied about one of his positions, no matter how unpopular. If you want a candidate that will inject religion into things so that he has something to fall back on when his plans are pointed back as retarded, go Huckabee. If you want someone who will conveniently change EVERY one of his positions to run for president, vote Romney. If you want someone who cross dresses and is a complete RINO, vote Giuliani.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:06 PM
And if you want total batcrap (but honest!) insanity, vote PAUL!
Slublog on December 19, 2007 at 8:07 PM
If you don’t care about barbarians butchering villagers vote Paul.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 8:09 PM
I’m just going to copy my comment from the Headlines and then read the rest.
ReubenJCogburn on December 19, 2007 at 8:09 PM
@ Slublog on December 19, 2007 at 8:07 PM
You call it batcrap, but you disagree with what, 1 or 2 of his positions? Compare that to any other candidate, MOST of which have so little record to actually look at that they can’t even be compared. RP lists ALL of his positions in various writings of his, he clearly lays out what he thinks. Most of the other candidates hide behind their 15 second sound bytes.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:10 PM
@ ReubenJCogburn on December 19, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Small as in, small minded.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:11 PM
@ Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 8:09 PM
If you want a government that tries to police the world and solve all of the world’s problems, DONT vote Ron Paul.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:12 PM
ok
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 8:12 PM
What was that you were saying about assumptions earlier?
And what good are solid policy positions when communicated by a conspiracy-loving crank?
Slublog on December 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
No, I’m pretty sure fighting a battle of principle over $500 in nazi money is objectively batcrap.
JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
@ Slublog on December 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Name one conspiracy he loves please?
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Now you are sounding like Gore.
Bradky on December 19, 2007 at 8:17 PM
the paultard goes around lying about Iran and the state of things, telling his supporters that “Iran has no Military” and is not a ‘threat’.
these people live on a different planet.
jp on December 19, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Heh.
How about…the US wants another Gulf of Tonklin!!!!
Slublog on December 19, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Would have thought Paul would have no position on this. What’s the basis for the opposition?
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Because it is the tip of a very big ice berg and he doesn’t want to go there.
bnelson44 on December 19, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Didn’t you hear? When asked about it, Ron Paul said “According to Sinclair Lewis, when fascism comes it will be dressed in an A-frame dress and open toed pumps.”
JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 8:20 PM
NAU comes to mind.
saying AIPAC runs our foreign policy.
pandering to 9/11 troofers and Neo-nazi’s, is boderline not to mention pathetic.
jp on December 19, 2007 at 8:20 PM
@ JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 8:18 PM
He might not, I do however. I don’t want my candidate for president to dress sexy for the weekend.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Ron Paul supporters: focused on the issues.
Slublog on December 19, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Paul is influenced heavily by Murray Rothbard, an anarchist who beleived the Cold War was a hoax to expand big govt. Many in this group have transitioned this line of thought to the War on Terror. I’ve actually had a paul supporter/blogger at an ‘intellectual’ type blog tell me that.
jp on December 19, 2007 at 8:23 PM
@ jp on December 19, 2007 at 8:20 PM
I worked in congress and had to deal with AIPAC. If you seriously think they have no influence on foreign policy think again. All it took was one call to the boss, and suddenly the Majority Leader was singing a different tune on the House floor.
Also, the NAU is a reality. There is ample evidence that its in its infancy.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:24 PM
@ jp on December 19, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Evidence for that? Or are you trusting the “truthers” as you refer to all RP supporters as?
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Is there anything too ridiculous for a Ronulan to believe? Well, aside from the possibility that Paul is a Bircher crank?
JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 8:26 PM
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Jonah Goldberg has a column about it at National Review this week, pretty good. google: “The Tradition of ROn Paul”
on Wiki they have a pic of Paul’s office with Rothbard on the wall.
check out chalcedon.edu its a Christian reconstruciton site(theonomist, not to mention politically ignorant), they have a blogger that is a big paul supporter and I beleive must also be influenced by Rothbard because he told me that the “War on Terror is a ruse”
jp on December 19, 2007 at 8:29 PM
That’s creepy as hell, but even creepier to me is the wild-eyed fanaticism of the cultists who mindlessly parrot his talking points. I keep expecting the announcement that they’re all going to shave their heads and try to hitch a ride on the Ron Paul Comet when it passes by Earth.
Kudos for the Pulp Fiction reference, though.
ReubenJCogburn on December 19, 2007 at 8:29 PM
You misunderstood my question. I know you don’t like it. I was wondering how you squared your position with my assumption that Paul is cool with it.
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 8:29 PM
@ JohnTant on December 19, 2007 at 8:26 PM
If you actually cared, I would explain to you what I believe and why RP fits as my candidate of choice more than anyone else, except for maybe one person. I just don’t know really anything about Fred, as he has nearly NOTHING on record about his positions on various issues.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:29 PM
@ JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I am not looking for a soul mate, I am looking for a presidential candidate. I don’t have to agree with him on every issue.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Reason Magazine has even called Paul out for his xenophobic imagination on this issue.
http://reason.com/news/show/122632.html
jp on December 19, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Information on Fred Thompson’s position on various issues is here:
http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx
bnelson44 on December 19, 2007 at 8:32 PM
How are revenues generated in Paul-land so the government can function?
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Ron Paul has believed in a North American Union conspiricy for a very long time.
bnelson44 on December 19, 2007 at 8:35 PM
What government?
bnelson44 on December 19, 2007 at 8:36 PM
@ Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 8:35 PM
You do know that income tax comprises a minor portion of the nations revenue dont you?
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »