What's a libertarian socialist?

is a euphemism for anarchist

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Perhaps just as problematic as Paul's refusal to return donations is the fact that (to my knowledge at least) he has yet to even speak out against conspiracy-minded organizations that have latched onto his faux-Populist language. The Congressman needs all of the support he can get, I suppose; for as much money as he is raising and buzz that he creates, I think we all know that he is basically Ross Perot without the private funds. Though there is the frightening amount of legitimacy that he receives (see Andrew Sullivan's blog, for instance). Really, is he far removed from being a more polished Lyndon LaRouche?

"What's a libertarian socialist?"

 A communist who doesn't like going to Party meetings, hates illegitimate authority and mistakenly thinks mob rule over the indivdual is not just that. libertarian socialists pretend to stand for what individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists actually stand for: individual freedom from coersion. If i'm not free to trade what i want with who i want on whatever terms i want with another individual in regard to the product of my own labor, then i'm not really free am i?

is that what we're calling serfdom these days? freedom?

what a narrow, bullshit interpretation of libertarian socialism.

we see where your capitalism has gotten us -- the greatest income disparity in history, with 1% of the population controlling 90% of the wealth. free trade policies that enable corporations to more easily exploit third world labor. privatization of social services leading to an overall decline in services in the interest of maximizing profits.

g-d forbid people should be more powerful than capital.  

tell you what, get your invisible hand up out of my f*cking face, and then maybe we can talk about freedom. 

What leads you to believe that "many" conservatives are turning to Paul?  He's polling at under 5% nationally and even lower in most of the early primary states.  All the big conservative sites from Hot Air to Red State have nothing good to say about Paul.  I'm one of the conservatives who likes Paul (although not as president) but I don't see many others even tolerating him.

And I too think "libertarian socialist" is like being a little bit pregnant.  You're either a socialist, and believe in more programs, more regulation and generally more government or you're a libertarian and you want less of all that.  A true anarchist would never want more government.

The sad part is that, as a radical libertarian, I somewhat favored Paul as a candidate, though as a libertarian socialist, he is not my ideal choice.

This misplaced modifier makes it sound as if Ron Paul is a libertaian socialist. Sieradski needs and editor.

Although it is distateful that an antisemite or racist is free to donate his/her money as they see fit and have a voice in our democracy, you need to consider the end of a matter. At what point will zionists, christians, muslims etc. be muzzled and removed from the process?

Should candidates really be taken to task for accepting legal contributions? In the big picture of a free society that answer has to be an uncomfortable yet firm "no".

What leads you to believe that "many" conservatives are turning to
Paul? 

How 'bout the fact that he raised $4.2 million in a single day from individual conservative voters? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html

All the big conservative sites from Hot Air
to Red State have nothing good to say about Paul. 

Just because douchebag pundits are sidelining the guy intentionally, doesn't mean that he's not doing well with John Q. Public.

And I too think "libertarian socialist" is like being a little bit
pregnant.  You're either a socialist, and believe in more programs,
more regulation and generally more government or you're a libertarian
and you want less of all that.  A true anarchist would never want more
government.

Way to put words in my mouth and ideas in my head.  Why don't you actually read the Wikipedia article I linked to before inventing the definition of Liberatarian Socialism for yourself.

~~~

Although it is distateful that an antisemite or racist is free to
donate his/her money as they see fit and have a voice in our democracy,
you need to consider the end of a matter.

This isn't about being racist!  It's about believing in a political ideology that supports using the tools of democracy to absolve others of their rights.  We're not talking about people who simply hate.  We're talking about people who, once in power, have a history of persecuting and killing others for their ethnicity or beliefs.  The right question is not whether or not it's legitimate to deny a person their political rights based on their beliefs, but rather, whether or not it's legitimate to deny a person their political rights based specifically on their desire to usurp America's democracy and to replace it with a fascist regime that murders non-whites.  

That's not about "beliefs."  That's about an intent to commit acts of physical aggression against your fellow citizen.

If a person was campaigning for President on the "killing niggers and Jews" ticket, should they be allowed to run?

I think the answer ought to be a comfortable and firm "no."

How 'bout the fact that he raised $4.2 million in a single day from individual conservative voters?

Again, what's your evidence that they're "conservatives"?

Just because douchebag pundits are sidelining the guy intentionally, doesn't mean that he's not doing well with John Q. Public.

Actually, my point in mentioning the polls is that he <i>isn't</i> doing well with John Q. Public.

Way to put words in my mouth and ideas in my head.

Relax, guy. I was giving you the fairly standard definition of socialist and of libertarian and showing that they don't coexist together in anything resembling a coherent political philosophy.

As long as he doesn't share their ideology, who cares if he takes their money?  It just means they have less money to fund their hatred.

"Libertarian socialism" isn't a euphemism, it's an oxymoron.  Espousing a view that advocates an end to private property robs the author of credibility.  Well, except to Noam Chomsky (The noted "libertarian socialist" anti-semite) and his fans, not the kind of company you generally want to keep.

<i>As long as he doesn't share their ideology, who cares if he takes their
money?  It just means they have less money to fund their hatred.</i>

I was disputing this statement: "many conservatives are rallying behind Paul".

It appears he takes money from Jews too.  He doesn't appear to me to be a hidden neo-Nazi or even anti-semite.  As long as he doesn't owe anybody any favors after he's elected (or not), I don't see why he should have to explain his acceptance of money.  But I do agree that it is suspicious (or maybe just stupid) that he is avoiding the JTA interview. 

Lookit.  Libertarians generally want to minimize if not virtually eliminate coercive systems interfering with individuals' freedom.

Libertarians differ over a few things - of course.  Libertarian capitalists support the right of individuals to own property, and "freely exchange" property.  And can't see any problem with that.  Libertarian socialists see a lot wrong with that, from the "property is theft" as expressed by the French anarchist Prodhoun [if people want to bring up anti-Semitism, fine, but there's enough examples of anti-Semitism among the ideological luminaries of virtually any ideology to make the exercise of limited value] to the concept that open can "sell" one's labor, one's body, one's freedom, takke, as long as it is voluntary.  Libcap feel that in basic ways all individuals are equal, libsocs feel that inequalities develop from property-ownership [and from other things as well.

Look it up.

David Weigel from Reason already asked him about the contributions from unsavory characters (see story here: ). His fundraising director said that he's keeping the cash:

I asked Bydlak about attention the campaign is getting from creepy white supremacists, and whether if they discovered donations from specious people they'd give them back. "If people who hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss," he said. What if the campaign keeps getting scrutiny as its coffers grow? "The scrutiny is a perfect sign of how this campaign is growing."

This misplaced modifier makes it sound as if Ron Paul is a libertaian socialist. Sieradski needs and editor.

Here is the deal folks: Call people out, get ready to be called out. Paul is bad news bears on some things, but not enough to call in the fear police; he has no chance.

That said, this was an interesting article from an interesting perspective. Thanks Dan for the report.

The author of this article says he is a libertarian socialist. A libertarian socialist supporting Ron Paul is worse for the Paul campaign, in my opinion. Libertarian socialists do not want to allow private ownership of the means of production. In other words, a person would not be allowed to own his own business. Libertarian socialists are anti-freedom, wrongly calling themselves "libertarian." So, I don't know where this author gets off on criticizing people who thinks whites are the superior race are bad for the campaign, when he is against the essence of freedom itself. If a person is free, then he must also be free to own private property. Good riddance. We don't want you in the Paul campaign anyway.

Anyone can give him money. It doesn't mean that he supports them. If he doesn't end up doing what they like, then that is their fault for donating.

Everyone should have the right to donate money in a democratic republic, no matter their views. Someone stated it before, if you prevent these guys from donating money, where do you draw the line? Maybe next year Muslims can't donate, or people from the church of Scientology, or jews. I know those are extremes, but it just raised the point why you can't really draw a line in this case. If a group agrees with someones views, who is anyone to prevent them from donating money?

They know however that their donations won't change Ron Pauls views, they are pretty much set in stone. As such, I don't see why he should return the money. We all know these donations won't sway his opinion on any single matter.

As for not returning the phone calls, yea that is a bad idea. My guess is that he's busy with all of the recent press, but he will probably come around.

Anyone who thinks that dictating the economy is freedom is seriously misguided. Maybe they have mastered the "newspeak" of 1984.

A "libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms, unless you believe in voluntary socialism within the framework of a free society. But then, that is not socialism as defined traditionally, but rather free association-based communism. And, even under this scenario, there would be many folks who would rather not be controlled by the group and who would freely opt-out given the illogical nature of the operations of many large groups based on questionable reward structures.

To put it simply, you cannot force socialism on people, it has to be done freely, otherwise there can be no talk of "libertarian socialism" without simply sounding like one who has yet to understand basic principles.

Let's at least be honest here.  It's not about the Jews but about the other 98% who inhabit America.  You have to stop and see it through the eyes of Americans who are not Jewish.  We hear about civil rights, diversity, fairness, etc. all the time - but its been at the sacrifice of the values that those 98% believe in.  Simple observations in daily life remind people every day that the present system/culture of America is not set up to serve them.  It may sound silly, but not being able to say "Merry Christmas" with pride and comfort is really, really ticking a lot of people off.  You can't watch a single television show, read a single article, etc. without there being a mention of Israel or the Jews.  That's how everyone else sees it.  

And then comes along Ron Paul, who is the only honest man in politics who clearly understands the economic, military and political mess our country is in.  Yes, some of these are believed to be caused by Jewish interests.  I personally think Jews are scapegoats for the mess we're in but many people don't see it that way.  They see Bernanke and host of Jewish politicians, as well as Jewish Hollywood, promoting ideas values that are counter to what the other 98% believe in.  Get as mad as you want, but that's how they see it.  I don't think Ron Paul has an anti-semetic bone in his body, rather, he has a logical approach to everything.  With regards to Israel, what sense does it make supporting them if it's going to bankrupt the US?  

And just I point this out, one of the reasons why he probably isn't returning your calls is because his campaign fears any potential backlash.  The Jewish community would pounce on him if he even said half a word that was questionable in their opinion.  Or at least that's how the other 98% sees it.

As for the whackos and creeps that support him - there are plenty of those that support the other candidates as well.  Take a look at some of the 3rd party candidates and some of the people that support them and you'd find the same thing.  I think the writer is showing a bit of her true colors here by saying he should return the money.  Has she demanded this of everyone?Seems like a vague attempt at trying to chop Paul at the knees financially and trying to give the appearance of a do-gooder.

Face it people, he's likely to get the nomination with or without Jewish support.  Be honest with yourself and look in the mirror and imagine what might be going in the minds of those other 98%.  America just isn't what it used to be in their minds. 

I don't see why he should interview with anyone who primarily identifies themselves with an ethnic group. You think he should have respect for, what, "Jewish" concerns? Why the Hell should he care about that? He's concerned for Americans, not subsets of them. Your collectivist, racial mindset is antithetical to his individualist philosophy. As for the money, he's not making any promises to the neo-Nazis and such. There's no backdoor deals. Just a donation. Probably because they want the right to speak their venom, just speak it, without risking being charged with hate crimes.

Apparently the Freedom Message is popular. I am an adamant Ron Paul Supporter and I’d like to personally disagree with you. Israel is the only country who actually pays the United States for the weapons we have given them. I am younger but I know that Moshe Dayan defeated all of Israeli’s neighbors in a matter of days. Israel would be much better off only buying arms from the U.S. and not receiving our unneeded aid. Then they could develop a foreign policy that will benefit their own state, not the U.S. Israel would be a much stronger country if we did not hold them back as our puppet and allowed them to become a world power in the Middle East and bring stability to the region. Dr. Ron Paul is advocating the withdrawal of troops from all over the world. Dr. Ron Paul is looking out for the best interest on the United States and in my opinion the best interest of Israel would be for the Israelis to run their own country how they see fit and we run ours the same. Now as for the donations, so what, if they want to give their money to Dr. Ron Paul then so what? Dr. Paul’s views are not going to particularly help them, except for defense of the first amendment. Remember we must defend the speech we hate to truly believe in the first amendment. If they want to give him money who cares? Bad for them, good for America.

I have reviewed some of the websites referenced in your article.  While the person who created Jewwatch.com clearly appears to be "off his rocker", Ron Paul's platform is basically freedom. That means people can be FREE to be the best they can be. It also means people are free to be idiots.

Ron Paul's ideals of personal liberties appeal to a wide spectrum of people that is why he gets donations from  those that want a new investigation into events of 9/11 and those extreme right wing elements who fear police state measures...I trust Ron his life is dedicated to honesty integrity and statesmanship unseen in this country since JFK

Tom Dybowski

I am a longtime conservative who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I now see the errors of my ways. Bush is a big government, big spending, debt ceiling raising, bankrupting, war mongering, liar and a pseudo-conservative (or as I like to call them neo-conservatives). Real conservatives want to limit the scope of government, they want local people to handle divisive issues, they want lower taxes, more individual freedom, they protect civil liberties, and they believe in the original intent of the constitution because it protects against government oppression.

If people can't understand that the current Republican party elite are not conservatives, I've got a bridge to sell you. The Republican party has been taken over by some crazy wackos that believe we must change the world and force our values and way of life down other people's throats. And people wonder why we have terrorism? If another foreign empire was forcing their ideas down my throat, I would be pretty angry.

I suggest everyone here educate themselves on the difference between neo-conservatives and real conservatives on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism

And the Kool-Aid has been dispersed...let the fun begin.

Though I will say this for the Congressman and his followers; at least he brings back the old, irrational isolationist tradition of Conservatism in the United States. And maybe, just maybe it will mean that people will understand the malignant and close-minded effects of isolationsim. I would have thought that the horrors of the 20th century would have taught such a lesson, but apparently not to all.

After reading numerous books by Ron Paul and reading hundreds of speeches and articles at www.RonPaulLibrary.org.  I am certain about this one thing. Ron Paul abhors everything to do with socialism, fascism and the inherent evil embodied in Nazism or any tyrannical government. Many Jewish people understand the threat that the Nazi regime posed to a freedom loving people and witnessed the devastating effects of Hitler’s socialism. Few today understand that Nazi is the abbreviation of National Socialism. Today we as American’s are once again confronted with two ideologies: Liberty and National Socialism. Socialism is represented here in America by nationalized health care, a centrally controlled economy, high taxation and a redistribution of wealth mentality. Fascist Socialism is represented by intense government intrusion into our businesses, personal lives and the growing national police state.  Some of the first things that Hitler did when gaining power was to convince people of the terrorist threat coming from the communist. In fact, the Nazi’s burned down the German capital, blamed it on the Communist and used this event to rally the Germans to suspend the constitution and give Hitler unbridled power.  The Socialist controlled parliament then passed laws to allow Hitler the ability to suspend the constitution and allowed German troops to be used against the German Jews. Here in America we have recently passed a very similar law called the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. Ron Paul fought against this Act. Additionally, the Germans passed laws to allow the Nazi's to read the Jews mail and to search their homes and businesses. This law is very similar to the USA Patriot Act. Ron Paul fought the passage of this Act. The Germans then passed laws allowing Hitler to declare Jews, and other citizens to be declared enemy combatants. They were then rounded up, denied the Right of Habeas Corpus, tortured and sentenced to death. This was without witnesses, based upon secret testimony and without counsel. This is now allowed to occur with US Citizens under our Military Commissions Act. Ron Paul fought the passage of this Act. The Germans required all Jews to have an identification. This is now required in America starting in May 2008, with the National ID Card required under the Real ID Act. Ron Paul fought the passage of the Real ID Act. Hitler then created a secret loyal military police force called SS. Recently we have witnessed the creation of the new force, not accountable to congress called Blackwater. Prior to Hitler the German Republic was called the “Republic” then in an effort to promote German nationalism he changed all references to the nation to  “The Fatherland.” Now in an effort to promote American nationalism we have “The Homeland.” Please read Naomi Wolf’s new book tilted Letter to a Young American Patriot. Jewish people, please do not be mislead. We must fight for liberty and freedom and against the fascist and socialistic elements working their way into our great nation. Ron Paul campaign is based upon a philosophy of liberty and freedom. Ron Paul, liberty and freedom abhor socialism, fascism and all that the Nazi party represented. Keep in mind, the German’s were at parties, the opera, sporting events, enjoying prosperity and the great society while all of these laws were being changed. Those who were identifying what was happening in Germany, warning the Jews and the German people were labeled as kooks by the National Socialist. Don’t believe everything you hear. Read and investigate for yourself. Stand up for liberty. Vote Ron Paul. http://www.jews4ronpaul.org/

Ron Paul plans to end the IRS. When americans have 40% more of their income to donate as they saw fit, imagine the REAL money streaming into Israel.   And all that with no strings attached.  It seems to me you should be supporting this candidate, not taking shots that some yahoo donating $500 represents a "noticeable source of financial contributions".

Do your research. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. Don't expect people to listen to you if you don't know about what you espouse.

I would be more concerned with all the anti-life - pro-murder abortionists who are donating to Hillary and Obama. Can you come up a list of these people and ask Hillary and Obama to give every donation back from them.

We don't actually have true capitalism in the United States.  Lots of US industries are subsidized by the government or regulated in some fashion.  So when you rail against capitatlism and at the same time have the United States in mind, just know that these are two different systems.  The government does a fine job contributing to disparity is my point.

Hey, it's kind of a huge illogical leap to get from "I tried to schedule an interview three times with no success" to "Ron Paul won't take calls from Jews."  I mean, I'm a yid, don't get me wrong, and I understand the where the defensive victimhood comes from, but that sort of thing is just that, defensive victimhood.  Dr. Paul didn't answer my calls for an interview, he hates Jews!  Aw, baloney. 

Frankly, even though I vehemently disagree with the author of the article, I appreciate the thought provoking nature of it.

Here's the way I boil it down. You want to decrease American intervention in Israel. I want to decrease American intervention in Israel. Neo-Nazis want to decrease intervention in Israel. Ron Paul has stated that he would do this in his platform. We all want the same thing, albeit for very different reasons.

There's no need for Ron Paul to repudiate these people or refund their political contributions. He's not running on the Nazi ticket the last time I checked. In fact, of all the candidates running for the GOP, he is least likely to lead to the establishment of Die Schutz-Staffel.(It's just not possible, this guy has too much integrity.)

Let's take the 5th of November fundraising effort. Roughly 37,000 individual donors. If he concedes to your point, then every single interest group would start to say "I don't like the belief of this group. Please return the donation and repudiate their beliefs. I don't want those guys donating to "my" candidate." Isn't that dangerous? Don't you feel that you would become what you despise?

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it
bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free
speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood
boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his
lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of
yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the
symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be
one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.
Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you
can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free'."

Anon.

Ha! The fact that you just created a parallel between Neo-Nazism and Pro-Choicers shows just how far from the fringes of normal discourse you actually are. Congressman Paul may not want to fess up to being an isolationist (because really, who would want to be grouped with the Charles Lindbergh, Robert Tafts or Gerald Nyes of the world when they have been proven to be so utterly ethically bankrupt and historically wrong about everything. So really, what else would you call a desire to leave the UN and leave NATO other than old-fashioned isolationism?

I abhor anyone who ties him/herself to an ideology as the cure to all of society's ills. Surely in some instances (say the drug war) Paul is correct. However, Paul (and his supporters, as well as anyone tied to an "ism") are so blinded by strict ideology that realistically speaking they don't have the ability or inclination to understand the utter complexities of our society. So yeah, he is nothing more than an ideologue to me and should be treated as such. As if that wasn't bad enough, he's an ideologue who has no problems taking donations from Neo-Nazis. Awesome.

Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. Libertarianism seeks to strip the state to only the most minimum functions possible in an effort to maximize the liberty of the individual. Socialism seeks to add functions to the state to promote the collective. The two philosophies are antithetical. Saying you don't want a traditional state and replacing it with a trade union or citizen council (i.e. a mob) doesn't make "Libertarian Socialists" libertarian--it makes them statists who have restructured the state in a more idiotic way.

Actually, reading this wikipedia entry, Libertarian Socialists aren't libertarian or socialist. Libertarian Socialism is just a particularly unrealistic, fairy-tale Communism--nothing more. So they should just replace the "Libertarian Socialist" tag with "Communist" to help avoid confusion.

Perhaps I'm not "intelligent" enough to fully understand the nuanced positions expressed in the article, but it seems to me that the author jumping to some rather nuts-o conclusions.

"Now, I want [Paul] out of the running, and frankly, out of the
Capitol. Those who pander to White Nationalists and neo-Nazis have no
place serving in the United States government..."

Since when does not taking an interview and advocating a non interventionist foreign policy qualify as "[pandering] to White Nationalists and neo-Nazis?" Are you seriously suggesting that Paul is a racist for advocating a sane solution to our current international woes?

But really folks,

I just cant believe that this is entirely about Paul's campaign taking 500 bucks
from some trailer trash wackjob. The fact a nut job donated means they're on board with some of Paul's ideas, not visa versa. And while I cant speak for them, it seems logical to me that the 2 things that Paul and a bunch of Nazi could ever agree on are:
1. Freedom of speech and,
2. Not giving foreign aid to Israel / Africa / Asia (Etc and so on)

Now, consider this: Your "libertarian socialist"
ideology is far from compatible with Mr. Paul's "libertarian capitalist" ideology (for god sakes man you're a collectivist), YET you supported him prior to this "nazi donation" debacle. Probably because he hit upon at least two things that you agree with:
1. Freedom (Including freedom of speech)
2. Not giving foreign aid to Israel

Does that list look familiar? OH WAIT ITS THE NAZIS LIST!

Now in light of that revelation, why is it so hard for you to comprehend that a bunch of inbred retards who are born and raised to hate Jews and "the man" can get behind that message? I mean obviously you are behind those things for different reasons (IE something besides blind hatred) These people were literally raised to vote this way.

They're too stupid, or desperate to care about the reasons for Ron Paul's position. They only know that Freedom of Speech means they can say mean and nasty things, and not giving money to Israel is better than giving money to Israel.

So really buddy, if you can be estranged by Paul collecting 500$ from some silly little man then you're as foolish and blind as those whom you hate so much.

It never ceases to amaze me how whether right or left, anti or pro Israel, Rock or Disco, people always degenerate to demagoguery in attempts to transfix their own personal political aims onto an unsuspecting and inquisitively innocent populace.

Ron Paul is not a Neo-Nazi by any stretch of the imagination. Any such collectivism is an anathema to Dr. Paul's oft expressed and espoused stance against special interest group's; especially in their claims to, or designs upon, "special" governmental representation and/or money. As his views are widely known and supported by an unassailable voting record, he can hardly be lumped together with Neo-Nazi's simply because Neo-Nazi's like Don Black decide that they like "some" (surely not all) of what they hear from Ron Paul. Were this the case, and using the author's logic, one would have to also wrongly assume that Paul is a Neo-Con, or that he should return my contribution as well since I have been associated with, and vocally supportive of, the Neo-Con ideals in the past. (Yes, I have awoken.)

How is it that the author transubstantiates Dr Paul's congressional voting record into an implied membership in Stormfront simply because Mr. Black presumptively happens to agree with his stance on foreign aid? At what point does the author draw his line? Personally, it is my greatest hope that Dr. Paul keeps Mr. Black's money and refrains from bending to demagoguery and innuendo. Mr Black, like it or not, is an American. As such he is perfectly entitled to agree or disagree with whomever he wants without expecting the same in return. He is also entitled to spend his money in any way he deems appropriate with all benefits or ramifications intact and, most importantly, without an expectation of receiving "value" for his money.

Given Dr. Paul's history and certainly by using common sense, it would be quite ridiculous of anyone to assume that Mr. Black's $500.00 contribution will entitle him to any special treatment from a Paul Administration. Equally as ludicrous, Mr. Sieradski would have us believe that Dr. Paul's acceptance of Mr. Black's money connotes acceptance of Mr. Blacks ideals, the truth is that the exact opposite is what is in evidence. Mr. Black is supporting Dr. Paul's ideals which happen to include to cessation of ALL foreign aid. Black likes that...I'm sure.

What Mr. Sieradski, and Mr. Black as well, should do is get out theirs calculators and do the math of what exactly such a withdrawal of aid would mean to Israel given that the aid flowing to the Arab nations around her would stop as well. While Israel garners the most US aide on a singular basis, the money pales in comparison to the aid extended to her enemies as a whole. Further, Israel enjoys a subservient hegemonic relationship with the US as a result of the present state of affairs and it would be much more in their own interests to be able to decide their future based on their own desires...not those of an American taskmaster.

I will proudly cast my vote for Dr. Paul while I thumb my nose at Don Black. I urge you all to do the same.

What gurantee does Ron Paul have that the interview will be fair and objectional, with no heavy editing or editorializing?  

As to the other details, Socialism is idiotic to me, and that includes National Socialism.  If the National Socialists want to donate to Ron Paul's campaign, it's because of an interest in the the freedom message.  They're well aware Dr. Paul will not be promoting any Socialist agenda with their campaign contributions.   

Why do you think Ron Paul is taking White Supremacist cash?

He is a white supremacist himself.  Just read his comments about how "95% of blacks in DC are criminal" in his newsletter "The Ron Paul Survival Report."  

Sure, he claims this was written by someone else, in his name, in his newsletter, but he refuses to name this mysterious ghostwriter.  Add this to his constant dropping of White Nationalist code words like "States Rights", is it any wonder why White Supremacists love him? 

Maybe they are not answering because they flat out said they are not
returning any donations, no matter who it is from. Fundraising
Director Jonathan Bydlak stated "If people who hold views that the
candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss...."

"Sure, he claims this was written by someone else, in his name, in his newsletter, but he refuses to name this mysterious ghostwriter."

A little research shows that Lew Rockwell wrote that piece. 

I am Jewish and think the Billions America gives Israel in relation to other countries is an ABOMINATION but mostly from AIPAC and Evangelical lobby groups
Its 30billion for 5million people, the rest of the world gets the same, lol

The other thing is if you QUESTION THAT support,
you are called anti-semitic, as if
it
has
ANYTHING to do with hating an entire religious group

This is just pure BS article and part of an information war to defend the elephant in the room, and that is America's globalist government favoring the right wing Israeli government as a spoiled child who can do no wrong

As Mark Twain commented, "There are three kinds of lies...lies...damned lies...and statistics." Dr. Paul was commenting on the statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center
on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based
in Virginia. In the statement he was facetiously ridiculing the statistical findings of the report...not making a blanket statement about D.C. blacks. Paul concluded in his column:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal
justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the
black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

Now that the context has been corrected, I think we can add another kind of lie to Mr. Twain's list...that practiced by The Usual Gang of Anti-Ron Paul's..."contextual misrepresentation". It would be nice if Dr. Paul's detractors simply stuck to facts relating to their agreement or disagreement with Paul's proposed policies rather than to resort to lies, innuendo and outright demagoguery.

You could use 'and' editor too.

Dr. Paul has made his views perfectly clear.  He wants everyone, on all sides, to have the freedom of speech, but never to do harm (infringe upon the rights) of another. 

Its the most libertarian of views, perhaps.  I believe it was Voltaire who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend your right to say it to the death."

 I myself, despise anyone who seeks to infringe upon another's rights in any way.  That goes for Neo-Nazi's looking to lynch someone, or Christians looking to ban gays from having civil unions/marriages, to the Government looking to tax my paycheck. 

I would take a few days to think about the decision to return the money myself, as well.  As a champion of free speech and liberty in the above fashion, while I would obviously not agree with their policies, why would I want to discriminate against them any more than any others? 

 Those same Neo-Nazis who contributed to Paul's campaign, should he keep the money, would be the most inclined to listen to him, and perhaps change their views in the future, as well.  I have grown and learned a lot as I've studied Dr. Paul's writings over the past several years.  Perhaps they will do the same? 

Let us not cast out those who need our help, but welcome them and show them a truer and better way to live.

Dov Zakeim... we want our money back. The deep rooted hypocrisy about this donation argument is childish to say the least.

Ron Paul is simply pushing the Constitutional view: "commerce with all nations, alliances with none". 

Ron Paul will take money from anyone, but he's going to do what the Constitution says.  Period.

And if you want to call the Constitution "anti-semitic literature", then sure, I can see how you think Ron Paul's anti-semitic.  It would be obvious that you're retarded.

But I certainly don't think that.  You use enough big words for me to believe that you're at least half as smart as you think you are.

I am a 62 years old athiest of Jewish background. I've been a libertarian for about 40 years. All libertarians oppose all government welfare...to the poor and rich (corporations) at home and to anyone abroad. If you wish to help others, through direct gifts or organized charity, you are free to do so. We are opposed to anything above minimal taxation, preferably taxes of a type that interfere as little as possible with a citizen's privacy. No property taxes...taxing property means you are essentially renting it from government and don't own it. No income or wealth taxes. Taxes should be of a use or consumption type. Such as sales taxes or fees to insure you can take a contract into court for enforcement if necessary. The federal government of the US existed on excise taxes for approximately 120 years and managed to get by on the 3% of GDP that these provided. The states and local governments existed on another 2.5 to 3%. American workers kept 94% to 94.5% of their earning for themselves until sometime past 1910. This was the most peaceful and most libertarian era in American history. It was also the period of our greatest and fastest growth. It was also a period of great charity and help to the poor.