"Freedom, baby!"

The Problem With Rand Paul's Convictions ... This is the sum of mainstream talking-head opinion concerning Rand Paul's statement about the 46-year old Civil Rights Act. Strange isn't it?

Would it be wise to teach your child: "Hold loosely to your principles and follow the currents of convenience?"

Or are the following words of Eleanor Roosevelt more likely to teach good character?

When you have decided what you believe, what you feel must be done, have the courage to stand alone and be counted.

Tell me ... Is it better to send someone to Washington who holds firm in their beliefs, or someone who will flip-flop depending which way the wind blows?

Flip-flopper's can't make rational decisions because they have no convictions for reference. A person of character on the other hand, can make the difficult decisions, because they are grounded in moral conviction.

What has our country become, that we now ridicule those with conviction while praising the spineless wonders who commission 3 polls before daring to even give an opinion (let alone make a decision)?

Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson absent conviction?

We sorta hold these truths to be evident according to the latest polls, that men are kinda equal ... possibly with some Rights ...

People can see through the fog though ... and Rand Paul is working on putting the federal government in a Kentucky stranglehold!

Kentucky Senate: Paul 59%, Conway 34%

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Rand Paul, riding the momentum of his big Republican Primary win on Tuesday, now posts a 25-point lead over Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race, but there’s a lot of campaigning to go.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Kentucky, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul earning 59% of the vote, while Conway picks up 34% support. Four percent (4%) percent prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Make no mistake about it either, Rand Paul is just a proxy for attacking the Tea Party movement in general.

Tea Party Haters

In his obnoxious essay "The Tea Party Jacobins," Mark Lilla noted the difference between left-wing populist movements which “use the rhetoric of class solidarity to seize political power so that ‘the people’ can exercise it for their common benefit,” and today’s Tea Partiers, who favor “individual opinion, individual autonomy and individual choice, all in the service of neutralizing, not using, political power.”

And this is precisely what upsets the mainstream talking-heads and Washington Establishment so much. The individual is making a comeback in America! Thanks to a century of ever-increasing government power, we're in a severely declining economy and our federal government is on the verge of bankruptcy.

"We the people" have had enough! The era of Big Government is over.

Going back 46 years, attempting to argue the Civil Rights Act, isn't going to help save faith in Big Government either. After all, Jim Crow laws were just another form of intrusive government. Abolitionists and civil rights organizers on the other hand, were forms of private power. So are the Tea Parties.

Rand Paul’s supporters are drawn to him because he is an unbending, anti-government traditionalist. The left would attack him if he came out supporting ObamaCare, so they're irrelevant. But what the hand-wringers on the right fail to grasp, is that if he retreats from his strong convictions, he'll begin to look like any other useless politician. In other words, worthless.

Fake News

Rachel Maddow and MSNBC are lying weasels to boot! They issued a FAKE TRANSCRIPT of the Rand Paul interview, which was then parroted by the rest of the mainstream media. They of course, refuse to apologize for their Noble Lie.

Getting Back to Basics

Paul Remarks Have Deep Roots

Republican candidate Rand Paul's controversial remarks on the 1964 Civil Rights Act unsettled GOP leaders this week, but they reflect deeply held iconoclastic beliefs held by some in his party, and many in the tea-party movement, that the U.S. government shook its constitutional moorings more than 70 years ago.

Mr. Paul and his supporters rushed to emphasize that his remarks did not reflect racism but a sincerely held, libertarian belief that the federal government, starting in the Roosevelt era, gained powers that set the stage for decades of improper intrusions on private businesses.

Mr. Paul, the newly elected GOP Senate nominee in Kentucky, again made headlines Friday when he told ABC's "Good Morning America" that President Barack Obama's criticism of energy giant BP and of its oil-spill response was "really un-American."

In tea-party circles, Mr. Paul's views are not unusual. They fit into a "Constitutionalist" view under which the federal government has no right to dictate the behavior of private enterprises. On the stump, especially among tea-party supporters, Mr. Paul says "big government" didn't start with President Obama, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society of the 1960s or the advance of central governance sparked by World War II and the economic boom that followed.

He traces it to 1937, when the Supreme Court, under heated pressure from President Franklin Roosevelt, upheld a state minimum-wage law on a 5-4 vote, ushering in the legal justification for government intervention in private markets.

Until the case, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, the Supreme Court had sharply limited government action that impinged on the private sector, infuriating Mr. Roosevelt so much that he threatened to expand the court and stack it with his own appointees.

"It didn't start last year. I think it started back in 1936 or 1937, and I point really to a couple of key constitutional cases… that all had to do with the commerce clause," Mr. Paul said in an interview before Tuesday's election, in which he defeated a Republican establishment candidate, hand-picked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, Ky.).

Mr. Paul has said that, if elected, one of his first demands will be that Congress print the constitutional justification on any law is passes.

Last week, Mr. Paul encouraged a tea-party gathering in Louisville to look at the origins of "unconstitutional government." He told the crowd there of Wickard v. Filburn, a favorite reference on the stump, in which the Supreme Court rejected the claims of farmer Roscoe Filburn that wheat he grew for his own use was beyond the reach of federal regulation. The 1942 ruling upheld federal laws limiting wheat production, saying Mr. Filburn's crop affected interstate commerce. Even if he fed his wheat to his own livestock, the court reasoned, he was implicitly affecting wheat prices. If he had bought the wheat on the market, he would subtly have raised the national price of the crop.

Following his comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul said Friday morning President Obama's criticism of BP has sounded "really un-American." WSJ's Jerry Seib joins the News Hub to discuss the latest controversy and the political damage of Paul's recent comments.

"That's when we quit owning our own property. That's when we became renters on our own land," Mr. Paul told the crowd.

Those Who Know Better claim that Rand Paul is having "a debate like you had at 2 a.m. in the morning when you're going to college. But it doesn't have a lot to do with anything." Yet, Rand Paul smoked Trey Grayson in the primary and is handily ahead of Conway in the Senate race as we speak.

Hmmmm ... Who's having debates that don't "have a lot to do with anything" again?

Conservative icon Barry Goldwater made the same argument as Rand Paul on the Senate floor just before the final vote on the Civil Rights Act:

I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort ... would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise and in the area of so-called ‘public accommodations’ and in the area of employment.


All the hysteria over Rand Paul's non-controversial statements (based on lies) is Realpolitik according to the mainstream/Establishment, while substantive debate is nothing but a 2 a.m. college debate.

Never forget ... Substance is the enemy of the status quo.