Ron Paul implicated in attempted white separatist invasion of Dominica

Big kudos to the African American-oriented NewsOne website for relentlessly calling out Ron Paul’s ties to the white supremacist radical right. Now they have dug up an unseemly affair covered by the New York Times in 1981—today disgracefully ignored by the supposed “liberal media”!—that implicates the supposed “libertarian” presidential hopeful in an attempted mercenary invasion and coup d’etat to establish a white separatist homeland in the Black-majority Caribbean nation of Dominica. No, we aren’t kidding. It seems that one of Paul’s more ugly contemporary supporters, Don Black of the neo-Nazi outfit Stormfront, at that time a Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, was indicted by US federal authorities in the plot, dubbed “Operation Red Dog.” The scheme called for hiring mercenaries to overthrow then-Prime Minister Eugenia Charles and restore the previous prime minister, Patrick John—and then creating an Aryan paradise on the island, funded through casinos, cocaine and brothels. On the day the mercenary force was to set out for Dominica in a small ship on the Louisiana coast, they were busted by BATF agents—who found over thirty automatic weapons, shotguns, rifles, handguns, dynamite, a confederate flag and a Nazi flag. In a brief flurry of coverage, the media dubbed the plan the “Bayou of Pigs.” Prosecutors tried to subpoena then-congressman Paul and ex-Texas governor John Connally after mercenary leader Mike Perdue said they were in on the plot. The request was turned down by a federal judge. David Duke—also now an outspoken Paul supporter (check out his website)—was called to testify before a grand jury, but took the Fifth Amendment.

The ADL profile page on Don Black informs us that he was convicted in the scheme and served three years in federal prison. As we have noted, Ron Paul says he disavows Black’s views—but won’t disavow his support. The media (contrary to howling protests of the Paulistas) have largely given Paul a pass on the affair—even when confronting him on it, acting as if it were just some random wackiness that neo-Nazis support this supposed “libertarian.” But Ron Paul’s ultra-toxic newsletters in the ’90s expressed enthusiastic support for David Duke.

So, do you like your political bedfellows, all you deluded “progressives” who are on the Ron Paul bandwagon?

See our last post on the Ron Paul pathology.

  1. I don’t see anything
    I don’t see anything ‘implicating’ Paul in this? What are you trying to do with these kinds of misleading headlines? I WANT REAL DIRT DARNNIT, not weak speculation! Step up your game!

    1. None are so blind…
      …as those who will not see.

      The facts are all documented, and speak for themselves. You wanna be an ostrich? I can’t stop you. Carry on.

      1. LOL
        What did you do, throw up this website like last night lol? Not only is this website ugly to look at, it’s filled with BS. The real racists are the ones that go to great lengths to make someone else out to be a racist.

          1. 10 years really?
            10 years really?

            Bill Weinberg
            44 Fifth Ave. #172
            Brooklyn, New York 11217
            United States

            Registered through: Go Daddy
            Domain Name: WW4REPORT.COM
            Created on: 08-Oct-04
            Expires on: 01-Jun-12
            Last Updated on: 19-Jun-11

      1. Nice try, Paul-sucker
        Actually, not even a nice try. Your post was entirely content-free, and therefore doesn’t meet the minimum standards of our Posting Policy.

        Will you suckers please read it before you post? If you want to shill for your crypto-fascist charlatan sleazeball politician—feel free. But you have got to actually say something for your post to be approved. Get it?

  2. What a huge pile of
    What a huge pile of propaganda garbage this whole article is. Listen people, if the worse you can get on a man is bashing ONE supporter you obviously are just trying to defame an honorable man. He can’t pick and choose his supporters more or less than any other candidate.

    Also I fail to understand your point of how the “liberal media” is ignoring a racist story? They would love to have a story like that if it truly was dictated by liberals.

    What a sad attempt at brain washing people.

    1. Paul-suckers can’t read, write or think
      You are a fool, sir. Paul cannot “choose” his supporters, but he can repudiate his supporters. When journalism on this website was picked up by the vile Stormfront, we immediately made clear that this was done without our consent and that we consider them Nazi scum. Paul just offers weasily equivocation, and when questioned bashes his questioner for making a “big deal” about it. Wake up!

      And obviously by putting “liberal media” in quotes, we meant to imply that (contrary to the stereotype) it really isn’t. That fact that they have let this story go down the Memory Hole is all the proof I need, thanks.

      1. facts vs truth . . .
        paul has on numerous occasions repudiated and disavowed the philosophies, activities and behaviors of any individual that seeks to weaken, damage or destroy the rights that ALL americans were granted under the constitution. this is a fact.

        additionally it does not serve him one iota to continually engage deluded, hateful individuals that write adolescent, poser, journalism like this.

        *please* anyone that encounters this sort of thing regarding ron paul, do yourself, and all of us the favor and see for yourself what ron paul is all about. YOU and only YOU can determine what really is truth.

        and btw – the only reason this story and others like this have gone down the ‘memory hole’ was because of the repugnant hole it originated from 😉

        1. Facts speak for themselves
          He refuses to repudiate the support of Stormfront. His newsletter gushed over Duke for years. He would repeal birthright citizenship and overturn the Civil Rights Act.

          Go away.

          1. You know Paul disagrees with
            You know Paul disagrees with property rights part of the legisation because it infringes on freedom. he said the property rights part is what he disagrees with. to say it’s the birthright part is making lies up or ignorance to the truth maybe some lied to you.

            look the govt believes that these acts of law can promote harmony so the reverse is seen true that jim crowe laws promote racism and bigotry. But, my understanding of paul’s stance is society of individuals interact voluntarily where racism is punished by freedom market where business seen to be racists are driven down by others preferred and taking business. But, business that aren’t racist employ the best candidate for a job on performance where they take the best person. The racist business won’t prefer the individual that they are against where this indivdual will become employed by a business that isn’t racist has the advantage of a better employer for their business against the racist rival business. i hope you understand what i’m trying to explain. but i don’t know your though process.

            1. Paul-suckers support Jim Crow
              So Greyhound has the right to put Blacks in the back of the bus? And the Greensboro luncheonette had the right to have a separate counter for Blacks?

              You guys are just charming.

      1. You have no evidence…
        Ron Paul was never implicated, so where is your proof that he was involved? You do a hit piece on the only candidate who wants to stop the wars. It seems to me that you just want to get to WW3 as quickly as possible.

        Everyone is racist. I’m sure you live in a segregated community, like most people. Go live in minority communities, then talk about who is racist.

        Ron Paul’s policies are pro minority, which is why you disagree with his policies. You, yourself, are racist.
        You don’t have a shred of credibility or integrity.

          1. Right
            Your answer was entirely unproductive. Minorities are arrested at a young age, usually due to the drug war, then recruited into gangs while in prison. This keeps minorities ‘in their place’ on the lower rung of society. That is true racism.

            People of your ilk know this, and are perfectly comfortable with it. That’s why Paul is unacceptable to you. It’s not because his policies are racist, you have no problem with that, it’s that his policies would allow minorites to ‘grow into their own’ and finally break free of slavery.

            The problems minorities are facing have mostly to do with poverty. Quantitative easing(prining money) is a disaster for mid to lower income people. It showers the wealthy with money, while further degrading the purchasing power of the poor.

            Idealism is fine, but it’s only rhetoric if you ignore what is actually going on. Ron Paul is the only one NOT ignoring it. Therefore, his policies are not racist, they are pro individual.

            1. What do you know about my “ilk,” Paul-sucker?
              You think I am “perfectly comfortable” with the drug war?

              You know nothing about me, and are talking out your ass.

              Check out my other website, sucker.

              Oops, wrong number, eh?


              1. You’re confused
                If you don’t support the drug wars then you would be voting for Ron Paul. Simple as that.

                Actually, by marginalizing Ron Paul, you are supporting more wars, more debt, and more misery. It may be that, consciously, you disagree with the drug war, but your actions betray that.

                1. Paul-suckers and zero-sum thinking
                  What, you think I should sell out fundamental freedoms like birthright citizenship for my right to smoke ganja?

                  Get outta here.

  3. This page reads more like the Facebook Wall of a middle schooler
    ….in that everyone who calls B.S. is immediately verbally assaulted by the owner.

    The website looks about as legit as a middle schooler’s facebook page, except the content is actually less factual.

    Good try buddy, but if you’re looking to discuss WW4 you need look no further than Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and friends, and all of the banks who own them.

    Go do your homework.

    1. Juvenile baiting
      All of the content on this website is 100% factual and documented.

      We cut no slack for Obama or Romney, so that is a complete red herring.

      Take a hike, Paul-sucker.

  4. More Ron Paul DIRT!!!
    Ron Paul supports the legalization of DRUGS in the name of our constitutional rights! DRUGS!!! Therefore he’s a drug addict. Is it too late to add “p.s. Ron Paul is a drug addict” to the headline?

    If the constitution were perfectly upheld, what could even Hitler do to oppress anyone? Nothing.

  5. Bill fucking WEINBERG.
    Bill fucking WEINBERG. The last name says it all. There’s a reason your peeps have been flushed out of every society they infested for 3000 years. Ugly ass fucking site, too, btw.

    1. Paul-suckers are Jew-haters

      That one is in clear violation of our Posting Policy, but we approved it to demonstrate to the world the toxic nature of the Ron Paul phenomenon. Interesting, this week I was repeatedly Jew-baited on Facebook by Ron Paul supporters. And I was Jew-baited on this website for expressing skepticism about supposed Mossad "false flag" attacks. See further examples here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.

      Yet everyone is constantly telling me how anti-Semitism doesn't exist. Gee, thanks for the news.

      1. equally distasteful
        bill, i support ron paul –

        my last girl friend was jewish one of two wonderful jewish women in my life.

        admittedly there are those that are ‘toxic’ in every fold – including your own. you also drink a toxic cup when you ‘demonstrate’ – and by demonstrate i mean the very antagonistic hateful tone you use to communicate your point – an eye for an eye doesn’t work:

      2. German Surname
        Weinberg is a german name! Get some facts billyboy. Funny how you try and demonstrate how toxic Paul supporters are on this completely toxic and cancerous website. You bullie and attack anyone not willing to drink your coolaid and if someone comes back at you in the same way youre right there saying “see how toxic and hateful they are?”. LOL!

        1. Are you trying to tell me I’m not Jewish?
          Excuse me, Weinberg is an Ashkenazic name. The German spelling would be Wineburg. This is a pay-to-play item, you owe me $5, Jew-baiter. Learn how to use apostrophes and pay up:


  6. “Prosecutors tried to…
    “Prosecutors tried to subpoena then-congressman Paul … The request was turned down.”

    And why did the judge turn down the subpoena request? Because it had no merit. Slimy defense attorneys will go to all sorts of measures to dig up even a sliver of “reasonable” doubt, and often resort to such subpoena trickery.

    Your article has no credibility. Go meet and interview Ron Paul yourself, to see if you can find a racist bone in him. But, have an open mind, as you may discover he’s just a nice guy, that values individual liberty, admired folks like Rosa Parks and MLK, and just wants everybody to get along.

  7. If Your First Loyalty is Always to the Truth…
    Here is some TRUTH for your readers:

    Dr. Ron Paul receives more DONATIONS from ACTIVE military than all other GOP candidates COMBINED –

    Dr. Ron Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies –

    Dr. Ron Paul PREDICTED the financial collapse in 2002 years before anyone else in congress –

    Don’t trust me, but trust the facts.

    Show some compassion to the Doctor.

      1. Watch the 2nd Video Link
        That will explain EVERYTHING about racist claims.

        A racist will NEVER do that…

        Please show some kindness to a merciful doctor Mr. Weinberg.

        1. “Kindness” to this moral monster?
          You fall for condescending tokenism while Paul states: “The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim – frequently a victim of his own lifestyle – but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care.”

          Get lost, right-wing creep.

  8. Really?!
    Good job on digging this up!!! Are people really this stupid to believe this? Try something better to attempt to bring Ron Paul down! This whole thing is getting more and more stupid as the days go by. So let’s see who’s left besides Ron Paul? There’s Newt Gingrich who is about as loyal as a wet paper bag on a rainy day. Could not stay faithful to a single wife (including the current one who allows an open marriage) got paid by Freddie Mac for consulting 1.6 million, etc. Then there’s Rick Santorum who every time the subject of Iran comes up you can tell how excited he gets to go to war (quick to send other peoples kids to die but didn’t serve himself) all the while saying ohhh our friend Israel. He claims to be a Christian, but thinks Israel needs our help to defend itself when the bible clearly says God will defend Israel. Not to mention the prime minister himself said they’d not need our help! Then Mitt Romney the guy who lost to McCain who lost to Obama, but somehow thinks he can beat Obama eventhough nothing has changed in the last 4 years. I think I will stick with Ron Paul!

  9. SC Primary Election Coverage
    I just watched the SC primary election coverage on the Revolution PAC live stream, and the coverage there was awesome!!!… None of the MSM negativity about Dr. Ron Paul!!!

    “When I was drafted, I was married with two kids, and I went” — Ron Paul (Try spinning that Chicken-Hawk Newt).

    1. Only watch what you already agree with
      No “negativity” from the partisan website that exists to boost your own candidate! Gee, what a surprise!

  10. Will someone please show me something more solid?
    I got a couple facts from this article.

    NewsOne is calling out Ron Paul for his ties to the white supremacist radical right.
    Don Black claims to be a Ron Paul supporter.
    Don Black claimed Ron Paul knew about the invasion attempt.
    A lawyer failed to subpoena Ron Paul to testify in the trial of Don Black.
    Ron Paul disavows Black’s views.
    Ron Paul does not disavow Blacks support.

    After reading this article and the sources form which this article was referring to (note: to the article showing Connally’s support for Ron Paul on NewsOne does link to the correct article nor could I find it in a quick online search.) I just don’t think the facts are there to back NewsOne’s (or your) implications.

    Am I missing something?

    1. Neo-Nazis? Hey, it’s all good!
      The link to the story on the claim of Paul’s and Connally’s ties to the plot is right here.

      Paul’s newsletters boosted David Duke, he still welcomes the support of Don Black, he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act and abolish birthright citizenship—but, hey, no problem, a judge found there wasn’t enough evidence to subpoena him in a neo-Nazi coup plot!

      Get serious or get lost, Paul-sucker.

      1. What’s the deal?
        Thanks for the link but it doesn’t support the fact in the article referenced by NewsOne. It rehashes the same subpoena denial.

        Ron Paul would want to repeal the Civil Rights Act because of the provisions that affected property rights not the removal of the Jim Crow laws. He is against the Jim Crow laws.

        Abolishing birthright citizenship would remove the incentive for illegal immigrants to migrate illegally to the US. Not sure how that supports your implications.

        So if a white supremacist supports the idea of free speech like I do, that makes me one too? That seems like the argument being made.

        I would seriously like to know if the candidate I supported was a racist but nobody has presented anything that I would consider more than the loosest of associations. I think his actions and what he says actually refutes this position.

        I’m being serious. I just have a different opinion.

        1. Another Paul-sucker against freedom
          So Greyhound has the right to put Blacks in the back of the bus? And the Greensboro luncheonette had the right to have a separate counter for Blacks?

          You guys are just charming.

          1. Not guilty
            From the New York Times article, we read:

            “The Federal authorities said today that John Connally, former Governor of Texas, and Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, had no connection with a plot to overthrow the government of a Caribbean island, despite a lawyer’s request that they be subpoenaed for the Federal District Court trial of three alleged mercenaries.”

            “….had no connection with…”

            Do you see it Bill?

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forces Black restauranteurs to serve Klansman.

            No Red-Herrings, just critical thinking. You’re welcome.

            1. Rush to judgement
              “Had no connection” in this context does not mean Paul and Connally were cleared, because they were never charged. It means not enough credible evidence was brought to justify a subpoena. Meanwhile, Paul’s contemporary supporter David Duke was subpoenaed, and his other charming contemporary supporter Don Black was convicted in the case. These birds of a feather are still flocking together—but you’ve got no problem with it because your boy wasn’t subpoenaed. Pathetic.

              Restaurants have the right to impose a dress code (which would presumably include Klan robes!), so yes, that is a perfect red herring.

              Repeat posts from Paul supporters in this item will hereby cost $5 a shot, with the price subject to change arbitrarily.

              Pay up or get lost.

  11. What a poorly documented article
    What “facts”? Examining this article from a purely objective point of view, you merely reference a 30 year old news report which states their was no evidence linking Paul and your so called “white separatist invasion” (the article makes no reference to a white separatist agenda). You have failed to report any evidence or justification for your harsh and unsolicited opinions – just poorly documented hearsay. As to Paul not disavowing the support of Don Black, the support of a political representative is something very much beyond their control (otherwise why we would we have elections? use your brain, you are exhibiting no logic whatsoever).

    To sample your logic, I find it disappointing that the political party that you vote for hasn’t disavowed you yet for sloppy, biased and hateful “journalism”.

    I expect you to sloppily type out a hate filled post with a ridiculous subject line like “hateful brownshirt authoritarian redneck” – as seems to be the case with the bulk of the comments you have replied to.

    I suggest you review the definition of prejudice: “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”. You are exemplifying it perfectly with your hate fuelled content.

    1. Paul-suckers are repetitive
      Same bogus canards over and over. This website is not working for any political party. Read our Mission Statement. You, on the other hand, are shilling for a Republican candidate.

      And our article is rigorously and fastidiously documented. Your accusation is transparently false.

      Go away.

      1. Rigorously and fastidiously
        Rigorously and fastidiously documented? I don’t see you citing any reliable sources with any groundbreaking information. Please, prove me wrong.

          1. Do you define “fastidiously
            Do you define “fastidiously documented” as linking to an inconclusive and dated news article, which is of no material proof to your opinions?

            1. Paul-suckers can’t argue seriously
              It isn’t about my “opinions,” which being subjective cannot be “documented,” but the facts that I assemble in defense of my opinions. And these are all rigorously documented. There is nothing “inconclusive” about my sources, and they are “dated” to the time of the facts they document.

              Go away, you have nothing serious to say.

              Repeat comments from Paul supporters in this item will hereby cost money. I am starting at a rate of $5 per comment. The price will go up as the comments become more asinine (or drop if they become more intelligent, although this seems extremely unlikely).

  12. pathetic attempt
    A bizarre allegation is not a story. Also, why is NewsOne, which is a black-only web site, allowed to get away with being explicitly racist?

  13. WTF?
    You fools writing this website need to learn the difference between allegation and evidence. It’s all allegation, but nothing with solid proof.

    If you can come up with something rather than what his supporters or others did, and you can prove Paul did it, fine, I’ll look at it. So far this website is a waste of time.

    1. Neo-Nazis? Hey, it’s all good!
      Paul’s newsletters boosted David Duke, he still welcomes the support of Don Black, he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act and abolish birthright citizenship—but, hey, no problem, a judge found there wasn’t enough evidence to subpoena him in a neo-Nazi coup plot!

      Get serious or get lost, Paul-sucker.

    1. You alright but…
      You should change your tone. You say some good things but Ron Paul is not the enemy. Every person on earth maintains some sort of bigotry or prejudice to varying degrees. Paul is less racist than every other president besides O. And I still haven’t seen or heard anything hateful from Paul or consciously racist. Let’s see libertarianism fail, can’t be worse than corporate fascism. Even Zinn claimed a sort of anarchy. I agree with Ron Paul a lot but I also thought Rev. Wright was speaking truth. I kind of like your snappy and agressive schtick its like right wing radio strategery.