The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Extremist Group Announces Speech by Congressman

By Heidi Beirich on October 8, 2007 - 10:42 am, Posted in Academic Racism, Hate Groups, White Supremacist

The Robert A. Taft Club, a group headed by a man with a network of racist connections, has announced that a U.S. congressman, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), will address the group this Thursday at a restaurant in Arlington, Va.

recentpic.jpgThe Taft Club is led by Marcus Epstein (right), who serves as the executive director of both white nationalist Pat Buchanan’s The American Cause and the Team America PAC, which is run by Buchanan’s sister, Bay Buchanan. Epstein writes for the anti-immigrant hate site vdare.com and he advocates for white supremacist organizations. He is especially fond of American Renaissance — a white supremacist journal that has suggested that blacks have “psychopathic personalities” — and attends the journal’s biannual conferences. In 2006, Epstein invited the head of American Renaissance’s parent organization, Jared Taylor, to speak to the Taft Club on the issue of “Race and Conservatism.”

Taylor isn’t the only extremist Epstein has invited to speak at the Taft Club’s meetings. Both Paul Gottfried, who has spoken at American Renaissance gatherings, and Robert Stacy McCain, a foe of interracial marriage who is an editor at The Washington Times, have spoken to the club. (Epstein is listed as one of McCain’s friends on McCain’s Facebook Internet page). This past February, Epstein invited two members of a racist and anti-immigrant Belgian party, Vlaams Belang, to speak to his group. In 2004, an earlier incarnation of the Vlaams Belang, Vlaams Blok, was banned on the grounds that it incited racial hatred.

It is unclear if Paul, who will be speaking about American foreign policy, is aware of Epstein’s racist ties.

  • John Parker

    The term “racist” has become the 15th century equivalent of “heretic”. The intellectual movement behind cultural preservationists can not all be lumped into the same brew as skinheads, KKK’ers and Nazi’s. You risk making the term irrelevant and meaningless, stifle real debate about the desireability and consequences of what multi-culturalism means for the future, and stereotype your opponents and trivialize the debate.

    Using your criteria, Harvard’s late great Samuel Huntington would be a moronic “rascist”.

  • Thomas

    We all know who are deemed ‘racists’ by shameless establishment groups like SPLC: everyone who does not go along with free trade, free immigration, total secularisation, total banker takeover of the economy, basically everyone who is openly hostile to what is often deemed the ‘New World Order’ agenda, not that I prefer to use this term.

    Funny, I never see a condemnation of extreme Zionism here. That is, Zionism which openly celebrates the murder of Arabs in the Holy Land. No, any criticism of that is ‘anti-Semitic’, any mention of the disproportionate Jewish composition of academia, entertainment, banking is also deemed anti-Semitic, while talking about WASP males as if they are naturally oppressive as a group is okay.

  • erin

    The writer seem to think people who want secure borders are racists. Buchanan? Paul? Taft!? Really??
    And those websites you mentioned, your claims are absurd..really now.

  • Phil

    Really, this article tries to implicate John McCain with extremists.

    You are setting the standards pretty low, SPLC.

  • Phil

    Pat Buchanan is a ‘white nationalist???’ The guy on MSNBC every night?

    I haven’t laughed so hard in a while.

    This SPLC is the left’s version of Faux news. Utter smear artists.

  • Zach

    I would like to make a few modifications to my previous comment. First, I should point out that Ron Paul is personally anti-choice, and that everyone knows this. His “defense of a woman’s right to choose” as I described above was *actually* a defense of a state’s right to limit or allow access to abortion. mea culpa. In any case, I think that still puts him head and shoulders above the other ogres on the republican slate. (and even democratic voters should be interested in the worst elements of the republican party, as represented by guiliani, romney and/or huckabee, being excluded from next year’s race)

    Second, it seems that a lot of other commenters on this article take it to be just another liberal/anti-Paul blog post. Look into the history of the SPLC before you make such charges. They have done many, many important things to advance individual liberty in the form of civil rights, and I personally can forgive them for going rather overboard in alarm at Paul’s perceived racism. I do, however, feel it necessary to rebut this particular article.

    Which brings me to my third point. Ron Paul has to be acutely aware of the controversy surrounding his 1992 fundraising letter and his recent speaking engagements. He should clearly and unequivocally come out in opposition to racism and in support of civil rights, at least as far as his ideas of limited federal government will allow. It’s sad that a would-be president would have to take such a step, but his opponents have forced it on him, and I think he’s smart and eloquent enough to make it come off as a statement of strength rather than weakness.

    And a final note on the absurdity of racism and charges of racism in presidential politics: some liberal group (I forget who) assessed every American president on a scale of 1 to 5, from “really really racist” to “anti-racist.” Only one president qualified as “anti-racist”: Johnson. If he can get away as squarely anti-racist for his domestic initiatives while at the same time murdering hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese people, then I don’t know how useful it even is to try to assess a leader’s policies in terms of racism and tolerance. There is liberty and there is oppression. The choice, at least this year, is ours.

  • ken pope

    I have now had two comments removed in the past couple days.

    The first was a description of a comedy skit from the “Chapelle Show” recounting a blind, black klansman raised in the south.

    The second comment attempted to appeal to the moderators penchant for censorship. Apparently, either the moderator has no sense of humor or doesn’t understand satire. Here’s hoping he wouldn’t censor Jon Stewart of the Daily Show. Goodbye, I will not return to this web site.