Posted on 01/03/2012 3:30:43 PM PST by mnehring
Here’s another tragic misunderstanding of Ron Paul’s message of human freedom: Paul has just gained David Duke’s endorsement. This week, the former KKK Grand Wizard telephoned into the radio show hosted by Stormfront founder Don Black to announce his support, and the two men had the following conversation.
Ron Paul was a hot topic this week on the talk radio show hosted by prominent white supremacist Don Black and his son Derek. Mr. Black said he received Mr. Paul’s controversial newsletters when they were first published about two decades ago and described how the publications were perceived by members of the white supremacist movement. Former KKK Grand Wizard and Louisiana Congressman David Duke also phoned in to explain why he’s voting for Mr. Paul.
“Everybody, all of us back in the 80′s and 90′s, felt Ron Paul was, you know, unusual in that he had actually been a Congressman, that he was one of us and now, of course, that he has this broad demographic–broad base of support,” Mr. Black said on his broadcast yesterday.
Mr. Black is a former Klansman and member of the American Nazi Party who founded the “white nationalist” website Stormfront in 1995. He donated to Mr. Paul in 2007 and has beenphotographed with the candidate. Mr. Paul has vocal supporters in Stormfront’s online forum.
Black said on air he does not regard Paul as “currently” a white nationalist. To which David Duke answered:
Again, I go back to that, you know, traditional topic that I always talk about, you know, the powers of international Zionism–a power in banking, a power in media, a power in government influence, in campaign finance–a power that’s, you know, hurting the values of this country on behalf of Israel,” Mr. Duke said. “So, I would vote for Ron Paul at this moment because he’s one of the few candidates who have policies in this regard and this realm that I wholeheartedly support, and that’s why I’d vote for him.”
A politician isn’t answerable for the antics of every one of his supporters. But there’s surely a reason, isn’t there, that racists, anti-Semites, 9/11 Truthers, and Holocaust deniers are so strongly attracted to the Paul campaign. They hear something. They continue to hear it too, no matter how firmly Ron Paul’s more mainstream supporters clamp their hands over their own ears.
Notwithstanding, Paul better not go third party against Romney right???
Notwithstanding, Paul better not go third party against Romney right???
“I partly agree with you. But Run Paul could disassociate himself from the KKK and other such nutjobs. When the KKK tried to embrace Reagan, he rejected them. Run Paul won’t do that. And Obama sat for over 20 years in a racist church and tithed to it. Some people stand on principle. Paul’s too egotistical to give up even the most kooky fans.”
I can’t argue with the political wisdom of disassociating with an unpopular minority’s. Nor can i argue against the political wisdom of droping highly unpopular policy’s positions. IE his foreign policy. If Ron Paul would do theses things he could secure the REPUBLICAN nomination.
But Ron Paul does not want to do these things and I must admit to understanding why in part. I don’t think Paul cares enough about theses radical minorities to give them the time of day. I can also see the libertarian issues with attacking any such minority.
All of theses people are entitled to think whatever they want to think, and by natural rights they should be able to do to themselves and consenting others what they want.
In theses respects Ron Paul really does represent them in representing the interest of freedom of thought & consenting action. He may in his heart know that and thus feel unjustified in openly disassociating himself with them.
That hypothesis does not however justify either his failure to point out his strong disagreements with their believes on libertarian grounds, nor as you point out the political necessity of appeasing the majority to have even a hope of moderating their tyranny.
His foreign policy I find most puzzling, although this is perhaps I am a Constitutionalists more then I am a pure Libertarian. Still I maintain that libertarians can and do justify violence in self-defense. Even thou the Federal Goverment is as described in the Federalist papers by design almost powerless at home. The Federal goverment does indisputably have the power to carry out an active foreign policy.
Now perhaps they have been going about it imprudently, and it seems almost certain that they have been welding the power out of order.(Failed to declare war.)
Perhaps you are right about that. Do you see a distinction between having respect for authority and being authoritarian?
Other than your response, all the other responses to my latest post, showed, once again, exactly the anti-authoritarian attitude of the typical Ron Paul supporter.
There is often a very blurred distinction between having respect for authority and allowing authoritarianism. I guess that is what bothers me about Ron Paul. He picks fights against even legitimate authority. If he were a little more selective, I might respect him more but IMO he too often comes across as a contrarian crank. I would love to see some of the abusive laws of our country repealed but I wouldn't trust Ron Paul to eliminate only the abusive ones. I would prefer someone who seems to hate only illegitimate laws and policies than someone who simply has an issue with authority.
You mentioned living under God as the ultimate authority. I whole-heartedly agree. However, there are other authorities which we must recognize as well. The New Testament, including the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, make it clear that we must live under authorities. The Apostle Paul explicitly commands us to obey civil authorities in Romans 13 - even stating that failing to do so is disobedience to God. As bad as we might perceive it today, I'm sure that our current laws are far more just than the laws of Nero who was Caesar at the time that Paul wrote the Book of Romans.
I agree, and when his voice breaks about something he really cares about, like war, he comes across as hysterical. I like the essence of what he says or what I believe he is saying (we can't trust our secular humanist socialist leaders and social engineers with fighting extravagant and adventurous wars [nation building]) but I can't stand the way he says it with trite "do unto others..." or "If I were an Iranian..." moral equivalence arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.