Posted by: reddiva | June 7, 2010

I Rest My Case


Under normal circumstances, you will not see me on a liberal website very often, but this article caught my eye from a scroll I saw on another liberal website referred to me by a friend.  This proves everything my colleague, Lisa Graas, and I have been saying about the lies of Rand Paul.  Not the “strongly Christian viewpoint” stuff.  I may dislike someone politically, but I do not go around accusing someone of being either Christian or Anti-Christian unless the person is an avowed atheist whose beliefs have been well documented in the media.

The article entitled “Rand Paul:  Small Government But Big Church!” provides some misinformation about Rand Paul that I, quite frankly, find humorous.  The comments section – now there’s a gold mine of information about the Pauls, both father and son, that Ms. Graas and I have written extensively about for some time now.  Maybe if you hear some of these things from a third source it will finally make some sense to you, the non-Libertarian-Republican  Rand Paul supporter.

I am removing the names just because I feel like doing it.  But I will not correct the misspellings, incorrect punctuation, and other grammatical errors.

Commenter #1 says:  Oddly enough I remember seeing a video of him from 2002 in a local debate in Kentucky criticizing George Bush for giving federal money to Churches. That he was a strong believer in separation of church vs. state.

Commenter #2 replies:  Rand Paul seems to have some strong libertarian roots, but I find it sort of funny how his views have changed as soon as he turned into a politician.  That said, as an editor on the site, I have changed your comment to remove the personal insult in the end. This discussion board is for discussion, not insults.

Commenter #3 was a spam, but the administrator didn’t notice that

Commenter #4 (Article Author) replies: (to spam comment) Thank you.

Commenter #5 says:  Intellectually dishonest, wow. I am not a Rand Paul supporter but Jesus Christ I wish people would stop playing spin.

Author says hes as committed to growing churches role in Government as much as promoting small Government.

Author brings up the fact he believes the Federal Government should end abortion… Very valid point… But then go to just list people who are his supporters that are religious nut jobs and reading their websites as if its Rand Pauls position is almost slander.

If I run for Senate and KKK support me for some reason or another (maybe I’m the only whitey in the race) it does not automatically link me with their agenda because they endorsed me.

Commenter #4 (Article Author) replies:  If you publish their endorsement on your sight, reiterate their beliefs as your own, and speak as a featured guest at their annual event, all as Dr. Paul has, I think it would most definitely link you to their agenda, either as a true believer, or as an opportunist, who’s going to be asked for quid pro quo.

Commenter #6 says:  Your article does not take into account the history of Rand and his dad Ron Paul. They are generally not outspoken supporters of drug legalization, because it’s not very popular, but it is certainly a goal of theirs to remove the governments interference in the medical industry and in recreational drug use as an extension of that philosophy. That is not a position these religious groups hold.

Their positions are sometimes in accord with gay and lesbian groups because they hold the general philosophy the government shouldn’t discriminate against individuals at all, but I would not call them champions of this group, and there is plenty of libertarian rhetoric a less conservative politician might choose to adopt, but they don’t.

Religious groups seem to be pushing for home schooling the hardest, and it shouldn’t be any surprise to find the Paul’s a big champion of this.

The constitutional, anti-fed, paleocon wing of the libertarian party has always tended to be pro-life. If you are pro-choice then that is fair criticism, but it’s totally wrong to imply these guys are going to help christian groups reduce the separation of church and state. I don’t think Rand would have gotten all these endorsements if he wasn’t running against Trey Greyson.

Let’s face it. The political action arms of the religious right would rather back an unscrupulous republican that wears religion on his sleeve and parrots their positions than a principled person like the Paul’s who have libertarian positions on drugs and other things that make them uncomfortable anyway.

Commenter #4 ( Article Author) replies:  To discern what Rand Paul’s ‘true’ beliefs are, from his professed, or political, beliefs is an act of divination outside my skill-set. I can only see the relationships he forms, the platform he establishes, and the supporters to whom he’ll be beholden.

Words and professions can be cheap… his actions are what’s disconcerting. He may talk like a Libertarian, but he’s starting to quack and waddle like a Christian conservative / Neocon .

He’s anti- pro-choice yet feels that business owners should be able to discriminate. How is a woman’s womb public domain but discrimination is a businesses right to exercise? A social conservative who wants bible based rules for individuals but corporations to be left unregulated. That’s no libertarian. That’s a politician of opportunity manipulating an ill-defined and contradictory platform to achieve his ambitions.

Commenter #6 replies:  I’m sorry, but the reason you can’t divine his ‘true’ beliefs is because you haven’t researched the subject very well.

I read a book by Murray Rothbard a decade ago that Ron Paul paid to have published so I know pretty damn well what his beliefs are. Murray Rothbard is definitely one of the most radical thinkers I’ve ever read, but he’s not a racist or a religious freak. He’s Jewish. He’s the most hard core type of anti-government libertarian there is.

What you have to understand is that all these radical right wing groups splintered off from the old republican party that FDR ended. There are white supremacists, constitutionalist, bible thumpers, and a whole range of others, but there is a big difference in a red neck that reads the New American on his farm and never gets out and somebody that reads Murray Rothbard. I think it’s a real tribute for a guy of Ron Paul’s age to have made the conversion from a John Birch society type of conservative into someone that’s actually studied the modern libertarian philosophy and gets cheered by college kids at political rallies.

And to be specific, Ron Paul stated absolutely that he supported drug legalization when he ran for president on the libertarian ticket. That’s not divination. He was quiet on that position during the 2008 run, and Rand is taking the smarter route of supporting medical marijuana.

And it’s not divination to say Ron Paul was supported by gay and lesbian groups in 2008. Those other people you named in your article are the kind of republican that would propose a ban on gay marriage just to score political points. The Paul’s are conservative, but at least they have principles and separation of church and state is one of them. Ron has voted down child pornography bills in congress because they conflicted with our right to privacy.

If you want to criticize the Paul’s for being a conservative brand of libertarian then talk about their position on immigration or abortion, but saying someone is pro-life, supports homeschooling, and is concerned about immigration is a long way from saying they don’t believe in a separation of church and state.

And pro-life is not absolutely inconsistent with libertarianism. The basic theory that underpins it all is that a person has a basic human right to control his own life and property. A woman has a life. A child at some point has a right to life. You can argue the government is violating her right to life, but you can argue the same for the child. You just have to accept that the basic axiom of libertarian thought cannot cleanly answer this question. I am pro-choice, but that’s my personal view.

That is very different from title 2 of the civil rights act which grants the government the right to interfere in private business. If you don’t see that title 2 is in conflict with pure libertarianism while abortion is a gray area then you are just being obtuse. Nonetheless, it was stupid of Rand to say what he did about the civil rights act when it has no bearing on today’s issues. I hope he learned his lesson.

Commenter #7 says:  I must have missed the part where he would use the force of law to meet any of the social goals of the religious organizations you are talking about.

Based on his dad’s record there is clear distinction between religion and government in the Paul family. But that said his moral values will guide him and I do not see that as a negative factor do you?

Commenter #4 (Article Author) replies:  A couple points; He should be guided by the constitution, not a personal or religious moral code. ‘He’ is running for office, not his father. If you missed the part regarding his interest in pursuing this agenda, read the article again, follow the links.

I also stumbled on this totally different take on the Rand Paul slip up regarding The Civil Rights Act on 1964 that I find thought provoking.

RELATED ARTICLES FROM MS. GRAAS:

Rand Paul Says No to Free Speech for Government Contractors

Rand Paul:  Radically Pro-Life or Radically Pro-Abortion?

Rand Paul Wrong on the American With Disabilities Act

Is the Tea Party Movement Being Hijacked?

Are You Covered Under Rand Paul’s Fourteenth Amendment?

Ms. Graas has other equally good articles about this same subject.  You can search this site for articles I have written about Libertarianism and Rand Paul’s amazing side-stepping.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Wow! Thanks for the links back! I’ll put a link to this in my sidebar. You’re an angel!

    • Not really – but thank you for thinking so! I am just so happy to see other people finally realizing what we have been saying for months!

      Red

  2. Don’t be too humble. You are both angels in my book, as is The Patriotic Nurse. Keep preaching the truth. I heard Rand Paul on Rush today with substitute host Dr. Williams. Beware the right wing media attempts to glorify Rand.

    • I’m blushing. Does that mean that I have to change my name to Pink?

      😀


Categories

%d bloggers like this: