Birds of a feather.
They support him because he’s weak on foreign policy and would be a pushover for the enemies of Israel and for that matter, for the enemies of America. He means well and is obviously committed to smaller government and less intrusion into privacy, which are good things. But if he has the likes of Farrakhan behind him, that’s mainly because he would offer the least protection to Israel, of all major presidential candidates (perhaps even including Obama, or maybe it’s a tie).
If Ron Paul would have a “lightbulb moment” about his international and security policies, he might turn out to be the best hope for American recovery. But there’s no point in saving the nation’s economy if you then allow her enemies to pick off other free countries one by one, that just postpones for perhaps one generation the day when America will have to stand alone against a much more hostile world than we see today. Is that one generation of prosperity worth the risk? And beside that, America has a moral obligation to Israel that Ron Paul and friends reject. I would put it this way — America bases its security and integrity on God’s providence. God is the God of Israel. It’s a covenant, comes with the territory. Ron Paul says he is a born-again Christian, but this weak spot in his armour is more typical of atheists and liberals.