"The issue at hand is 'Strippers for Ron Paul.'"

The issue at hand is "Strippers for Ron Paul." Why would the adult entertainment industry support such an obvious Christian? It is because the Christian congressman, Ron Paul, understands the proper role of government in the United States of America. Government should not dictate morality. Christians are instructed to cast stones if only free from sin. According to Biblical teaching, we are all born into sin and Ron Paul is the only candidate of the Republican Party doing both what his Constitution and Bible demands. I don't know which he puts first, but I presume that it doesn't matter because they aren't incompatible.

Free will and free persons. Ron Paul will not likely be giving personal support to strippers, in dollars or encouragement, but he supports, in legislation, their right to be free. For that, this mother, wife, small biz owner, inventor, Libertarian Party county chairman, and ex-stripper thanks him.

More here. The blogger who penned that, Michelle Shinghal, will be on Tucker Carlson's show tonight to discuss the SFRP phenomena, which is at least as interesting as those dirty rotten hippies who "went clean for Gene" McCarthy way back when.

Hat tips: The Wine Commonsewer and Gordon Unleashed.

More background here.

Comments

Taktix® | August 24, 2007, 9:22am | #

I think having SFRP or simply just strippers at fund raising events would be a good move.

It works for PETA.

(p.s. Obviously a joke, as that wouldn't fly too well with the statist, GOP crown)

(p.p.s. the Firefox spell-check says "statist" is wrong. Are we not allowed to use that as a word any more? Should I have written "progressive"?)

jet | August 24, 2007, 9:23am | #

The tissue at hand ...

Randolph Carter | August 24, 2007, 9:33am | #

De-Pants the State!

Rattlesnake Jake | August 24, 2007, 9:37am | #

Giving lap dances for campaign contributions might be a good idea.

MP | August 24, 2007, 9:39am | #

Big boobies and a big bank account.

Now that's a sub-title! Capitalism! Yeah, baby!

Warren | August 24, 2007, 9:41am | #

Great name for a 527. Unfortunately there is no such organization. Not even a website. Damn.

I sent my first monetary contribution to the Paul 2008 campaign this week. They need to get some attention.

chad | August 24, 2007, 10:12am | #

Well, I don't know how this will play out, but hopefully it will get him some attention.

Alexia | August 24, 2007, 10:13am | #

Can't be tax issues they're interested in? My guess is that stripper support is totally about the money.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 10:25am | #

It is because the Christian congressman, Ron Paul, understands the proper role of government in the United States of America.


Of course, Ron Paul would also feel that the regulation of the stripping industry is left to the states so as President he'd have nothing to do with it either way. So why support him?

Government should not dictate morality.

But all laws are based on morality. Theft is outlawed because enough of us believe that stealing is wrong.

ClubMedSux | August 24, 2007, 10:37am | #

Theft is outlawed because enough of us believe that stealing is wrong.

I could be wrong, but I always assumed that theft is outlawed because property rights are necessary for a stable society.

On a side note, am I going to get in trouble for justifying Dan T.'s post with a response?

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 10:39am | #

"Of course, Ron Paul would also feel that the regulation of the stripping industry is left to the states so as President he'd have nothing to do with it either way. So why support him?"

Because in all likelihood Paul's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause would get the Justice Department out of the business of policing internet porn [one component of which is online stripping].

And because in all likelihood Paul's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment would dramatically reduce the ability of municipalities to employ regulation to effectively deny property owners the right to use their property for a business involving stripping.

There's little he could do on either of these matters directly, but his judicial appointments would presumably have some impact.

"But all laws are based on morality. Theft is outlawed because enough of us believe that stealing is wrong."

This is technically true, but in the context of American politics "laws based on morality" is a term of art usually reserved for laws designed to morally edify, rather than to protect against actual harms.

Jason | August 24, 2007, 10:43am | #

Government exits solely to protect the liberties and property of each and every individual. That is why theft is outlawed. It is not because enough of us believe theft is wrong.

joe | August 24, 2007, 10:45am | #

Not just a Christian: such an obvious Christian.

robc | August 24, 2007, 10:47am | #

Jason,

But the reason we protect liberties and property is that behavior that hurt them are immoral.

No government should ever pass laws banning moral or amoral behavior. And, or course, shouldnt ban immoral behavior unless there is a victim needing to be protected.

robc | August 24, 2007, 10:48am | #

joe

Not just a Christian: such an obvious Christian.

Is there any other kind?

Anonymo the Anonymous | August 24, 2007, 10:49am | #

Guy: Whoo! Yeah, shake it baby!
Lisa: Hey, quit objectifying my mom!
Guy: Just a minute -- hey baby, you're an object! whoo!

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 10:58am | #

Government exits solely to protect the liberties and property of each and every individual. That is why theft is outlawed. It is not because enough of us believe theft is wrong.

But it's a moral belief that each individual is entitled to liberty and property.

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 11:02am | #

This is technically true, but in the context of American politics "laws based on morality" is a term of art usually reserved for laws designed to morally edify, rather than to protect against actual harms.

I agree, but "term of art" sounds like a euphimism for "spin".

You really can't have a society without some level of collectively agreed upon morality.

Now, what that level of morality should be is certainly open for debate, but I think it's dishonest to employ the term "morality" to only describe moral principles that you disagree with.

Reinmoose | August 24, 2007, 11:23am | #

Now, what that level of morality should be is certainly open for debate, but I think it's dishonest to employ the term "morality" to only describe moral principles that you disagree with.

regardless of whether or not I agree with Dan on this matter, does anyone else find it funny that most people would like for the word "morality" to only describe moral principles that they DO agree with, and yet we tend to be opposites of that? :)

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 11:44am | #

"You really can't have a society without some level of collectively agreed upon morality. Now, what that level of morality should be is certainly open for debate, but I think it's dishonest to employ the term "morality" to only describe moral principles that you disagree with."

It's not dishonest if everyone knows what the term means. It can definitely mean there's room for improvement, though. The problem would be selecting a usage and then to get people to accept it.

After all, you're fighting thousands of years of misleading language.

Somehow people seem to know when you're using the word "morality" to mean an Augustinian concern with the flesh and with purity of thought, and when you're using it to mean that you shouldn't kill people. No one considers the statute against murder to be a blue law. But it would probably be helpful to actually have the language to describe the distinction that people are supplying by their own understanding.

NH | August 24, 2007, 11:44am | #

The reason libertarians will never get anywhere is they would rather talk about some little aspect of things than get out there and campaign...

All laws are based on morality, otherwise, why make it a crime to kill or steal, the only two things the government should have a right to legislate?

Ooops morality?! You can't say that word, it's the litmus test and thus outlawed....and then you deteriorate into the very political correctness that you are supposed to hate.

I'll stick with the GOP thanks. They are the true libertarians.

The Wine Commonsewer | August 24, 2007, 11:45am | #

Nick, That is a perfect excerpt from Michelle's blog. She has captured the essence of our philosophy right there and illustrated how the seemingly obvious dissonance between Christianity (religion) and the adult entertainment world can co-exist in a free society.

Ron Paul isn't calling for another beer and a lap dance. But he's not interested and throwing you in jail for doing exactly that either.

Jennifer | August 24, 2007, 11:51am | #

All laws are based on morality, otherwise, why make it a crime to kill or steal, the only two things the government should have a right to legislate?

Because there's a difference between "morality" defined as "avoiding behaviors which cause active harm to another or make a stable society impossible" (the rationale behind the laws against theft, assault and murder), and "morality" defined as "avoiding anything I personally find offensive so nobody should be allowed to do it."

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 11:52am | #

Well, NH, I think the Randroid portion of the libertarian audience would agree and say that it is the business of government to enforce morality - but that their morality is the right one and the one that should be enforced, and not the nonsense that Judeo/Christianity/Islam has peddled for centuries.

Again it's a language problem. The demographics of the United States makes it inevitable that when you say the words "I think the government should legislate morality" people fill in the blanks to assume that you mean that the state should make sure no one drinks on Sunday, and that no one ever sees pornography, and that kids with baggy pants should go to juvie. That's just the political lexicon we've currently got. It's part of the same jumble of misleading language that makes both Justin Raimondo and Pat Robertson "the right" in this country. OF COURSE people shouldn't use the language that way, but just try to get them to stop.

libertreee | August 24, 2007, 11:53am | #

Why make it a crime to kill or steal...NH

They are crimes because they inflict harm on others. "Morality" as used in this post refers to
those actions that, at worst, inflict harm only on the person doing them. See JS Mill's "on Liberty" and Lysander Spooners "Vices are not crimes" for more detailed explanations.

The so called "conservatives" justify laws against crimes that harm no one except possibly the individual doing them by conflating this distinction, and reducing all statutes, by virtue of legal positivism, to the same argument-It's the law, stupid.

Of course, Dan T, this is open to debate. That is why it was posted to a blog, with comments invited. Do you wish to debate, or just split semantic hairs?

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 11:57am | #

Because there's a difference between "morality" defined as "avoiding behaviors which cause active harm to another or make a stable society impossible" (the rationale behind the laws against theft, assault and murder), and "morality" defined as "avoiding anything I personally find offensive so nobody should be allowed to do it."

The problem is that I don't know anybody who actually puts forth the argument that things should be outlawed because they find them personally offensive. Usually, people who want "sinful" activities banned or regulated make the argument that those activities do in fact cause harm to others, even if indirectly.

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 12:00pm | #

Nick, That is a perfect excerpt from Michelle's blog. She has captured the essence of our philosophy right there and illustrated how the seemingly obvious dissonance between Christianity (religion) and the adult entertainment world can co-exist in a free society.

I'm not sure she does, really. Christianity, generally speaking, takes the point of view that the well-being of others is in fact your business. Libertarianism takes the exact opposite stance.

Jennifer | August 24, 2007, 12:06pm | #

The problem is that I don't know anybody who actually puts forth the argument that things should be outlawed because they find them personally offensive. Usually, people who want "sinful" activities banned or regulated make the argument that those activities do in fact cause harm to others, even if indirectly.

You of all people should know that just because a person makes a particular argument, doesn't mean the argument's not a steaming pile of bullshit.

The Wine Commonsewer | August 24, 2007, 12:06pm | #

Christianity, generally speaking, takes the point of view that the well-being of others is in fact your business. Libertarianism takes the exact opposite stance.

Dan T, while you are correct, that isn't what I said. I said, this is how Christians and Lap Dancers can coexist in a free society. A free society where the average Christian would not have a right to vote on whether or not Dan T gets a lap dance every Friday night (just to keep him tuned up).

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 12:09pm | #

"I'm not sure she does, really. Christianity, generally speaking, takes the point of view that the well-being of others is in fact your business. Libertarianism takes the exact opposite stance."

And a good thing it does, too. Taken literally, if the well-being of others is in fact our business on Christian terms, then we should resume the burning of heretics and witches. The only reason we stopped is because we no longer literally believe that the well-being of others is our business.

"Usually, people who want "sinful" activities banned or regulated make the argument that those activities do in fact cause harm to others, even if indirectly."

Doing so generally relies on false-consciousness arguments - that one can be harmed even if you insist you have not been - that any intellectually honest person should dismiss out of hand. OR they rely on second and third hand "impacts" where direct causation can't be shown, or consequentialist arguments that are disproven by instances where the consequences don't accrue. There's a difference between acknowledging that "it can be argued" and acknowledging that those arguments are sound and worthy of consideration.

The Wine Commonsewer | August 24, 2007, 12:10pm | #

I'll stick with the GOP thanks. They are the true libertarians.

Maxine says.....

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 12:12pm | #

You of all people should know that just because a person makes a particular argument, doesn't mean the argument's not a steaming pile of bullshit.

Sure, but the merits of any argument are matter of opinion.

What I was saying about your post is that you substitute the actual argument people are making for an argument that they generally are not making. A straw man, if you will.

For the most part, people who advocate regulating or outlawing such activities as drinking, porn, etc. are saying that these things harm individuals and that when individuals are harmed, others who depend on them or have relationships with them are also harmed, at least indirectly.

NH | August 24, 2007, 12:14pm | #

Thanks Jennifer and libertreee for helping to underscore my very point -- it's all about semantics and who said it and why, as to whether it is valid. It's all about the problem libertarians have with the perception that someone might (gasp) be telling or suggesting they do something.

I call it LODD or Libertarian Oppositiional Defiant Disorder.

It's the reason why we have 700 Meetup groups but no volunteers to do real campaigning on the weekends.. God forbid someone should take the lead and do the work...and pass the information along... We will NOT take orders (or suggestions or even information that's helpful) FROM ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nosirreee!~

The Wine Commonsewer | August 24, 2007, 12:16pm | #

If you work on the assumption that indirect harm caused is a basis for all law, pretty much everything needs to be illegal. Which the progressives are working on already. Believe me, we have more to fear from the self-righteous moralizing progressive left than from any Thumper with message and a mission.

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 12:17pm | #

And a good thing it does, too. Taken literally, if the well-being of others is in fact our business on Christian terms, then we should resume the burning of heretics and witches. The only reason we stopped is because we no longer literally believe that the well-being of others is our business.

It's more like we stopped because we don't think that burning people is in their best interests.

Doing so generally relies on false-consciousness arguments - that one can be harmed even if you insist you have not been - that any intellectually honest person should dismiss out of hand.

Certainly you can be harmed and not realize it. I don't see why that argument should be dismissed.

OR they rely on second and third hand "impacts" where direct causation can't be shown, or consequentialist arguments that are disproven by instances where the consequences don't accrue.

But few of us are only concerned about direct causation. Otherwise, we wouldn't care if our neighbor is thrown in jail without committing a crime because that doesn't harm us directly.

Bob M. | August 24, 2007, 12:21pm | #

I believe that Richard Maybury sums-up the law/morality issue very well by saying that all religions promote two common things:

1) Do all that you say you will do
2) Don't encroach on others or their property

These are the basic tenents of civil and tort/contract law and are the only morality you really need to understand what the limits of government should be.

Unfortunatly, govermments regularly ignore these two basic principles. Dr. Paul simply wants the federal government to obey these "laws" and I believe everyone can support his positions except those that want to lie and trespass.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 12:21pm | #

"For the most part, people who advocate regulating or outlawing such activities as drinking, porn, etc. are saying that these things harm individuals and that when individuals are harmed, others who depend on them or have relationships with them are also harmed, at least indirectly."

There are some pretty dramatic definitional problems with that.

One problem is that it's consequentialist - in other words, you're arguing that you have to [for example] prevent me from smoking pot because I will be harmed if I smoke pot. But this argument is immediately disproven if I smoke pot and am not harmed. It doesn't matter if you can show that some dumbass in Missouri who did meth harmed himself as a result. You have to be able to show that I, Fluffy, am harmed if I smoke pot.

After all, by definitions ALL thefts are harms, because if the victim of a theft doesn't perceive it as a harm, it's not a theft. So to compare "blue" crimes to theft on a consequentialist basis, you have to show that the consequences are universal.

The Wine Commonsewer | August 24, 2007, 12:23pm | #

NH,

I used to be aware of a fundie church that defined smoking as immoral. Nobody else did in those days. Now they've gotten their wish. Smoking is immoral and ultimately will be illegal.

Maybe that's what you mean by semantics.

The Wine Commonsewer | August 24, 2007, 12:25pm | #

I might add that Michelle comments on H&R sometimes. Most of you probably knew that, but just in case some didn't, she is, literally, one of us.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 12:32pm | #

"It's more like we stopped because we don't think that burning people is in their best interests."

No, we didn't.

Americans overwhelmingly self-report Christian belief. If you self-report Christian belief, that means you believe people misled by heretics are subject to eternal damnation. Given that set of premises, if you refrain from killing heretics before they can lead others into eternal damnation, you're not really acting as if the welfare of others is your business.

"Certainly you can be harmed and not realize it. I don't see why that argument should be dismissed."

Because it relies on the notion that the arguer has privileged consciousness relative to the people reporting the harm.

It's basically the same as redefining theft so that I can simply assert that someone has stolen something from your house even if you insist that everything is there.

I think you're confusing instances where people lack knowledge of existing harms [i.e. someone who has been poisoned but doesn't know yet] with the false-consciousness argument that is often advanced that says that one "think" one is happy when one really isn't, which is of course nonsense.

"But few of us are only concerned about direct causation. Otherwise, we wouldn't care if our neighbor is thrown in jail without committing a crime because that doesn't harm us directly."

That's not an indirect harm. Your neighbor is being directly harmed. An "indirect harm" is "your neighbor drinks beer, and if he didn't drink beer he'd volunteer more in the community and maybe coach little league, so the community is being harmed by the fact that he drinks beer".

Randolph Carter | August 24, 2007, 12:36pm | #

Bob M., your boy's theory couldn't be wronger.

What about the chicks at the Bacchanalia, or the worshippers of Odin? or Yezidi tribesmen? or any of the variety of anthropomorphic, capricious gods that humanity has turned out? If anything governments act like the gods of most old school religions - assholes who think they own the joint.

Warren | August 24, 2007, 12:39pm | #

I can't believe how quickly we stopped talking about strippers, and started arguing amongst ourselves.

Curse you Dan T!

Bob M. | August 24, 2007, 12:43pm | #

Randolph,

Right. Most governments act like assholes or worse. If they wouldn't lie and trespass then we would be much better off. That's what I want.

joe | August 24, 2007, 1:05pm | #

The statement that individuals have a right to own property and not have it stolen is, itself, a statement of morality and values.

So is pretty much everything after "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

Values-based statements of morality I happen to agree with, but no less values- or morals-based than "Boys kissing boys is wrong."

Ron Holland | August 24, 2007, 2:01pm | #

Strippers are certainly a free market profession dependent on the laws of supply and demand. Any regulation should be at the state or local level depending on local dictates or morality concerns. I support strippers for Ron Paul as most of the real political whores in Washington are all supporting other candidates.

Speaking of political whores and vested special interests, please read and sign the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html

T | August 24, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Christianity, generally speaking, takes the point of view that the well-being of others is in fact your business. Libertarianism takes the exact opposite stance.

No, Dan. As usual, you're wrong. Libertarians have a wide variety of positions about the well-being of others. What unites them is the idea that the well-being of others is generally not the business of the government. More precisely, it's not a sufficient reason for the government to do something.

You want to concern yourself with how your neighbor and his immortal soul (or lack thereof) is doing? Want to make sure he's got enough food to eat and a bible to read? Fine, well done you and have a nice day. Just don't have people with guns take my stuff so you can afford to give away charity. If you are Christian, forced charity is worse than the regular kind, because you have removed the element of moral choice that is essential to spiritual development.

Charles | August 24, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Libertarians tend to oversimplify (I consider myself one BTW). The fact is that for whatever reason, the existence of strippers and strip joints causes some people to be less happy than they would be without them. This is the (totally subjective) harm. In an ideal world, all negative externalities like this would be internalized, and if your strip joint caused more net unhappiness, all things considered, than happiness, it would go away. As part of this ideal world, if the place stayed open, it would compensate the offended individuals exactly. It's too easy to just say that someone's displeasure at the existence of strip clubs is somehow invalid and should be ignored.

Jason Shackai | August 24, 2007, 2:54pm | #

Murder is immoral--but it is not the immorality of murder that is being regulated by the laws that ban it. Murder and other crimes are not owtlawed because they are immoral, they are outlawed because the legitimate role of government is to protect the rights and property of individuals.

"Life, liberty and property" are not moral values--they are "natural rights." Natural rights can be legitimately protected by governments--morality cannot legitimately be regulated. However, there is overlap.

Stripping, gambling, porn, etc. are issues of morality and should not be regulated.

Murder, theft, fraud, etc. are issues of morality as well--but they are not regulated AS issues of morality; they are regulated as the protection of "natural rights."

Taking away someone's natural rights IS considered immoral--but it is not the immoral act that you are regulating, it is the infringement on someone's rights.

cls | August 24, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Why people assume Ron Paul is their friend on issues likek is beyond me. He is a fundamentalist Christian (he converted) and a state rights statist. That is he believes the individual states can do pretty much what they damn well please include imposing Christian morality, dictating on abortion, censorship, gambling, etc. A libertarian, on the other hand, doesn't want government, at any level, doing such things.

Local Big Brother is not our preferred system. The difference is that Paul is not a libertarian -- if anything he has actually moved further away from libertarianism in recent years. He joined the anti-Immigration hysterics as new convert. He has become far more vocal on abortion and has even voted for federal restrictions on the practice. Paul's thing is that your neighbors should oppress you not DC. A libertarian doesn't want anyone oppressing htem.

Charles | August 24, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Ron Paul is nearly my ideal, with the possible exception of abortion, which I don't care much about anyway. I have no idea why libertarians think it's a good idea to flood our country with left voting mexican immigrants, or even what the viable alternative is (to controlling the borders in some fashion). To my knowledge, Paul hasn't said what he would do regarding the thornier local issues if he were running for governor of a state. Since he's running for president, keeping the federal government out of our business is the right answer. From my perspective, there is plenty of "competition" between states, so I'm more than happy to let each state try it's onw thing, and people can move to the place that suits them best.

D. Greene | August 24, 2007, 3:58pm | #

He is a fundamentalist Christian (he converted) and a state rights statist. That is he believes the individual states can do pretty much what they damn well please include imposing Christian morality, dictating on abortion, censorship, gambling, etc. A libertarian, on the other hand, doesn't want government, at any level, doing such things.

Nice attempt at a troll, but sorry, that straw man argument won't hold. Ron Paul is running on a constitutionalist platform - which means things like the Bill of Rights issues that apply to states would still be in effect - free speech, habeas corpus (pre-Bush at least), etc.

Oh, and if being a fundamentalist Christian means being anti-war, in favor of don't ask don't tell, in opposition to the drug war, and opposed to regulation of the internet, then maybe I would convert.

The Wine Commonsewer | August 24, 2007, 6:09pm | #

It's too easy to just say that someone's displeasure at the existence of strip clubs is somehow invalid and should be ignored.

Why? I hate dirt bikes and everybody ignores that, especially my noisy ass neighbors.

The Wine Commonsewer | August 24, 2007, 6:12pm | #

Ron Paul's position on immigration is that you cannot have open borders with a welfare state. There is merit to that argument. I am an open borders kind of guy myself and from a pragmatic point of view we have a huge labor shortage. We need an efficient and quick way of getting foreign labor here. If that means no social services, I'm down with that. Nobody else is, however, and therein lies the rub.

dls | August 24, 2007, 6:42pm | #

look at it this way, if you have the right to tell other people how to live, they also have the right to tell you how to live.

jh | August 24, 2007, 6:50pm | #

So where can we order the "Strippers for Ron Paul" bumper stickers?

miche | August 24, 2007, 7:34pm | #

Well, I'd hate to be the dude who updates the studio address database for MSNBC. They gave me an old address for the studio and Jamieson, the producer of Tucker Carlson, sounds like she knows how to rip a new ass.

Anyway, I'll be on next week.

Mad Max | August 24, 2007, 8:54pm | #

I could only find one stripper for Ron Paul by using the links:

http://hustleandcashflow.com/2007/08/20/ron-paul/

Mrs. Shingal is no longer a stripper, and she outed her stripping past for the first time in the linked post.

How does this add up to "strippers (plural) for Ron Paul?" I would say that one swallow does not make a summer, but someone would probably make a dirty joke out of it.

Drew | August 24, 2007, 10:30pm | #

There's no such thing as bad publicity.

Jeremy | August 24, 2007, 10:53pm | #

Warren was right! I read the article , then started with the posts, by the time I got to his post I totally forgot the article was about strippers. Funny.
Excellent posts though.

zenpiper | August 25, 2007, 12:09am | #

I think it's great that strippers are supporting Ron Paul and not another candidate. I hope they turn up at straw polls and Ron Paul meet-ups and just everywhere. It was often said that Ron Paul attracted the fringe element and this certainly supports it. We are kindred spirits all.

Eric Dondero | August 25, 2007, 9:06am | #

It must be election time here in South Texas. I got my standard constituency mailing from my Congressman, Rep. Ron Paul. Same shit different day. It's all about how Ron Paul is "Fighting Terrorism." And how Ron Paul "Is fighting for the Rights for our Military." And how Ron Paul "Is fighting the coming threat of Bio-Terrorism." And how Ron Paul "Strengthened anti-Terrorism Laws."

3/4ths of the 4 page Newsletter is about Ron Paul fighting Terrorism "on all fronts."

Only on the 3rd page does it begin to talk about other issues like Agriculture and Education.

Ron Paul has two GOP opponents now: Friendswood City Councilman Chris Peden, who is Pro-War in Iraq, and Air Force Fighter Pilot Mark Henry of Galveston, who is also Pro-War in Iraq.

Funny how Ron Paul seems to go for the muscular when the GOP primaries start coming near.

Eric Dondero | August 25, 2007, 9:11am | #

The more important question is why is Michelle supporting Ron Paul in the first place?

Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN. Michelle is a diehard Libertarian Party partisan.

Now, I have no problem with dual-party activism. But it's highly hypocritical activism when one viciously bashes one of those parties, and then turns around and supports one of the people running on that party ticket.

Nobody is saying you have to swear a loyalty oath to the GOP. But, if you're going to switch to Republican to support Ron Paul, the least you could do, is to be friendly and moderately supportive of the rest of the Republican Party.

After all, Ron Paul himself, switched from the LP to the GOP, and in the late 1990s to prove his loyalty to the Party, heavily backed our Governor George W. Bush for President.

Strippers for Ron Paul, great.

Now how about Strippers for George Bush, as well?

The Wine Commonsewer | August 25, 2007, 11:31am | #

The more important question is why is Michelle supporting Ron Paul in the first place?

Nick actually covered that by posting the excerpt he quoted from Michelle's blog post.

I'm also a die-hard libertarian who has never voted for a Republican in a major political office contest.

I will vote for Ron Paul in California's open primary.

The reason for that is fairly self-evident. In case it's not that obvious to you, his values come closer to mine than any other candidate. Probably as close or closer than Kubby's.

miche | August 25, 2007, 11:38am | #

Dondildo,
I thought I turned you off. Don't make me remove your batteries.

I'm not switching parties to support Ron Paul, but I am attending a $1000 plate dinner for him next week. These things have been explained to you, but you either haven't the intelligence to sort it out or you're a liar.

Anyway, I just got an email from the show and we are going to do the segment Tuesday. I will be discussing my support for Ron Paul and hopefully provide some insight into why some strippers support him.

miche | August 25, 2007, 11:53am | #

I'm only loyal to the LP as a county chairman, and will not be voting for RP in the primary because it would be illegal for me to do so and then hold convention. For any Texas libertarian who doesn't wish to be actively involved in the LP convention process, I would recommend that they consider voting for Ron Paul in the primary.

Party loyalty matters as strategy, but blind loyalty is one of the problems in this country. TXLP easily achieved ballot access through the last election so we don't have to worry about petitions. We can afford, in TX, to support Ron Paul, the man.

Jimmy Schiel | August 25, 2007, 2:12pm | #

You are right Ron Paul is the only person from ethier party that is for freedom and liberty. Your magazine is fantastic I've taken it for a couple of years but, you should endorse Dr. Paul whole hartedly, and admitt he has a chance to win. If we are to stop the fascist take over of our country people like Dr. Paul and Sharon Renier-(D) Michigan 7th District are our only hope. Real patriots for America.

Eric Dondero | August 26, 2007, 8:54am | #

Great, Miche-mash.

But, all those LPers you talk of who are going to vote in the Republican Primary for Ron Paul, like it or not, will be official Republicans for at least 2 years, by Texas Law, until the next primary.

I'm loving it. Jeff Daiel, Pat Dixon, and Guy McClendon, all 2-year Republicans to be.

Eric Dondero | August 26, 2007, 9:01am | #

Hey "Strippers for Ron Paul" Chair-lady,

How do you feel about the War on Terror? The guy you're backing is apparently a huge supporter of fighting Terrorism, according to his latest mailing to his constituents.

Funny, the national media portray Ron Paul as this strident non-interventionist pacifist dude who wants to isolate America from the rest of the world.

Yet, Ron Paul portrays himself, at least to his constituents, as Captain, fighting evil Radical Muslims all across the Globe.

Some sub-headlines from the August, 4 page Ron Paul "Constituency" (reads more like a campaign mailer), mailing to the District:

"SAFE Act proposed"

"Support for Presidential Use of Force Against Terrorists"

"Paul Approves Money in Wake of Terror Attacks"

"Helping Families of Terrorism Victims"

"Supporting Unity in Terror Aftermath"

"Paul Supports Tough Penalties for Bioterrorism"

Side note - Two photos appear in the Newsletter. One of Ron Paul speaking to a Military Coast Guard unit, and another of Ron Paul speaking to the Boy Scouts.

Quite militiristic 'eh?

Wonder what Ron Paul's nationwide leftwing looney tune supporters have to say about his military-backing machismo?

lame | August 26, 2007, 2:13pm | #

compared to almost every other candidate of both parties, ron paul is dramatically less military-industrial-complex-esque

miche | August 26, 2007, 10:40pm | #

Eric,
Please copy the document you speak of and email it to me. I'm so accustomed to hearing lies from you that I refuse to speak on the issue you mention without first verifying your accuracy.

Eric Dondero | August 27, 2007, 9:35am | #

Miche-mash, what is your fax number?

I have to go to Houston today. I'll stop by an Office Depot and fax the 4-page newsletter to you.

You can call me with your fax number at 832-896-9505.

Of course, I won't hold my breath to get any fax requests from Reason staffers, David Weisgal, Brian Doherty, who are so enamored with Ron Paul, that they would be completely uninterested in any evidence of him being a hypocrite.

Nick | August 31, 2007, 11:45am | #

Eric, Ron Paul IS fighting terrorism. The terrorists names are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, and most of Congress. They usurp our rights, our Constitution, and our sovereignty. Shame on them. I cna understand why Ron Paul supported GWB the first go round. W claimed we need to stop nation-building, stop policing the world, etc. Yet since day one he lied. Ron Paul should not be held responsible for not knowing GWB was lying. Just like anyone who supported going to Iraq to stop Saddam from obtaining yellow cake (more lies) and using it against us should not be held responsible for GWB lying. How could we have known? It's not like we have access to classified intelligence documents. Ron Paul is being consistent. GWB has not been consistent with his pre 2000 election message. You of all people should know this.