On a somewhat bizarre note, one candidate has a big fan and endorsement, but I doubt this one would go over well if it was picked up by the media. None other than former presidential candidate (and former Grand Kliga or whatever they call it in the KKK) David Duke is backing Dr. Paul for president.
Posted on Duke’s website:
From time to time, I?m going to send you my thoughts during this campaign. Your support is so important to me, and I want you to know what?s happening.
Today, we had good news from the US Senate?not exactly a normal occurrence?when the president?s immigration bill went down in flames.
Here we had a vastly expensive piece of legislation that would have made the immigration problem worse, and put more controls on the economy. So naturally, the entire establishment was behind it. It was a slam-dunk, or so they thought. Then the American people got riled up, and despite all the special interests, the pressure, the media, and the money, scared the politicians enough to vote the right way.
If our campaign succeeds, this will happen on a whole range of issues. The politicians will hear from the people on foreign wars, high taxes, Fed inflation, and all the other plagues visited on us by DC. And listen they will.
And speaking of our campaign, I am very excited by the Iowa rally this Saturday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=16OCg4C1fq5W47gNJo_2bDHw_3d_3d). This is an historic moment. Of course, the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief had the right to exclude the most pro-life, anti-tax candidate in the race. But when they did so, people rose up. So we are holding a rally that will reverberate around this country. Our campaign goes from strength to strength, but I am convinced that this Saturday will be very important in the fight for a free, peaceful, and prosperous America.
Maybe you can come to the rally. In any event, I know you?ll be there in spirit, and I?ll write you all about it afterwards. Your support in this race means everything to my family and me.
Warmest regards,
Ron
PS: Because of people like you, I don?t need the $100 million the establishment candidates will have. But I do need your help. $25, $50, $100, or even more?whatever you can send would do so much good, and be so much help. Thank you!
Of course, the good Dr. probably sent this to all of his supporters, and wasn’t singling out Duke as “important” to him, but I don’t think the Paul fans are jumping at the chance to post this all over the place. In all fairness, most of the candidates have some wacky contributors, but still…. David Duke?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Wow, 30 minutes without the Paul brigades rebuttal.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Ack! Open HTML tag alert!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
How can yo fix that html thing?
Got it fixed.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
This shouldn’t exactly come as a shock. Ron Paul has been a strong defender of Ed and Elaine Brown, the New Hampshire couple resisting an arrest warrant for nonpayment of taxes on the grounds that the Sixteenth Amendment doesn’t exist… or something. Anyhow, the Browns have now become the new Cindy Sheehans of some factions of the 9/11 truth movement, such as wethepeople (twprn.com) AND the neo-militia movement, like former Christian Identify Movement member Randy Weaver, and Ron Paul hasn’t exactly distanced himself from the 911 truth circus, appearing regularly on wethepeople’s radio show and comparing the Browns to Martin Luther King and Ghandi.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
…Poor Paul! Haha.
Sean P, am I supposed to get angry at someone who resists the use of force from the government to pilfer their money? I can see how a comparison to Ghandi would be fitting, honestly.
The anti-tax argument, by the way, is that the 16th Amendment was never really ratified, not that it doesn’t exist. The courts have always rejected that. So, whatever. I’m still pro-voluntary taxation.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Sean P: Paul did not defend them, he defended the principles of civil disobedience(you know, that thing that MLK, Henry David Thoreau, and other kooks like that practiced). He stated that the Browns should have to accept the consequences of their actions, no matter how just they were.
As for the David Duke issue… I don’t really have anything to say about that. I would just like to assure you that most Paul supporters are not wackos. It just seems that way because our loudest members are the wackos.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Paul has no control over who supports him, so it’s not his bad. Why is a rebuttal is necessary for this?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
TLG,
Not that I’m interested in more than a 1 or 2 comment discussion on this…but the idea of a “voluntary” taxation system is just nutty.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
So you prefer to use guns to make people pay taxes? The use of violence to make people give their money up to a group of individuals is perfectly moral to you?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“Paul has no control over who supports him, so it’s not his bad. Why is a rebuttal is necessary for this?”
No rebuttal is necessary. It’s just amusing when people come out of the woodwork to support any candidate.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Phil,
I know most of you guys are completely normal. Don’t take some of my dry humor I might have as a slight on all of you. It’s just your loudest members are also the most entertaining bunch we’ve seen in a long time.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Tommy, I don’t blame you in the least; I can’t believe what some of my fellow Paulites say. If I hear one more mention of the New World Order…
July 12th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Yeah, Phil M — I’ve seen some of that stuff from Paul supporters, too. Also: Chemtrails, Reptilian humanoids, 9/11 Truth…
Paul’s support *is* coming from the fringe. And it’s a shame, because he’s a man with a lot of good ideas.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:41 am
And as for murphy — Way to dismiss an entire concept by calling it “nutty.” Well, let’s not debate the philosophy and merits behind the idea, let’s just call it nutty and hope that the idea goes away!
I’m against the initiation of force, you’re for it. Simple as that.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:42 am
PhilM: Paul DID defend the Browns — he compared them to ML King and Ghandi. When you are defending someone you don’t otherwise agree with because of some higher principle, you don’t compare said persons to ML King and Ghandi. Period.
ThatLibertarianguy: I really don’t know what to say except that, the last time I checked, Ghandi and ML King were into non-violent resistance. Turning your house into an armed bunker and announcing to the feds that they’ll never take you alive would seem to be contradictory to MLK and Ghandi’s teachings.
And the broader point here is that Paul’s relatively functional supporters keep talking about the importance a “constitutional government” (to repeat the mantra that Steve Greenhut
keeps tossing around). What exactly is constitutional about refusing, through use of arms, to follow a law that was duly passed by our representatives in congress and which is consistent with the constitution of the US? (and don’t give the the 16th Amendment was never ratified nonsense, it passed by a 2/3 vote of the Senate and House and was ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures, and whatever technical objection is being made to this ratification process was rejected decades ago).