Friday, April 17, 2015


Make it stop! Make it stop! It burns! It burns!

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Children, Hate Speech, and Voting

Not much to add here. This is literally true. Liberals in general do support campus speech codes, and many justify it with the arguement that eighteen-to-twenty-two-year-olds are not adults yet, and are not mature enough to be subjected to free speech. And yes, there are movements among liberals, most recently in San Francisco, to lower the voting age to sixteen so that more left-wing politicians can get elected. They'll tell you it's because younger people are more open-minded, but of course the real reason is that they're more ignorant and naive, and are much less inclined to thing before acting. And before some social justice warrior indignantly writes in to say the two groups of liberals aren't completely congruent, I'll point out that yes, some liberals agree with the one position but not with the other. However, the two groups certainly overlap.  As for the illustration, it's Nagato Yuki-chan of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu) again, and she looked so good in the last quibcag, I decided to use her again.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Unholy Matrimony

When you want to think about what words actually mean and what logic really is, you can't do better than C. S. Lewis. Even when he doesn't convince you to change your position, you've learned a lot from him. Here he helps us set 'gay marriage' in perspective.

This is from Iron Ink.

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

Today, with Sodomite coupling (“marriage”) we have reverse-engineered Lewis' account. The account should now tell the story about a man who ordered Cow Urine and Chicken fesus from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the Cow Urine he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied “Cow Urine is only cow’s milk.” After eating the Chicken poop he commented on the tastiness of the poop. Again the waiter responded that Chicken poop is really the same as chicken eggs.

A person at the next table observed all this in incredulity and shouted to both waiter and customer, “You two are insane. You don’t know the difference between what God has meant for garbage and what He meant for nourishment.” At this the waiter and customer along with much of the rest of the customer clientele, who was also dining on Chicken shit and Cow piss, arose to denounce the man who pointed out the insanity of the waiter and customer. They denounced the intruder as being a urine-ist and from suffering from fecalphobia. They insisted that he was a “hater” and demanded to know where his compassion was. They quoted scripture to him about the evil of judging. They insisted that all restaurants, in the name of fairness and equality, be forced to sell Chicken shit and Cow piss to all who wanted to buy it from them as a breakfast entree.

With the normalizing of sodomite “marriage” we are insisting that grotesque garbage is in fact the very same thing as Marriage. We are insisting that we call that which is destructive to human flourishing to be the same as that which is nourishing and refreshing to human thriving. We are in even worst shape then the waiter and customer in Lewis’ original parable. In the orignal parable the customer was at least eating and drinking the proper production of Cow and chicken, even if Lewis’ waiter was trying to draw an equivalency between nourishment and refuse. What we are doing instead is consuming the refuse while insisting that offal garbage is the same as nourishment.

And the really odd thing … the thing that is breathtakingly bizarre is that many in the Church are telling us that we ought to join in the celebration of a grotesque impossibility thus giving our whole hearted approval to the equivalency of someone dining on chicken shit and cow piss all the while insisting that it is really eggs and milk. It is ministers in the Church who want us to call and support a grotesque impossibility as the same thing as “Holy Matrimony.”

Actually, neither C. S. Lewis, nor Lewis Carroll could have ever conceived of this scale of utter madness.
Quibcag: Illustrated by Nagato Yuki-chan of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu), who is certainly logical-looking.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Abortion and Ideology

I've said this before, but some things have to be said over and over again. A political ideology is a little bit like a scientific theory. It's not an end in itself, and its very purpose to is explain reality. Therefore, if the theory/ideology contradicts reality, something is wrong with it.

One of the elements of a lot of ideologies is an attitude towards abortion. My personal ideology is not black-and-white in this connection. I think abortion is a relatively unnatural and intrusive thing, but sometimes such things are called for. Basically, I'm over there with Margaret Sanger, and I want dysfunctional people to have all the abortions they want, because otherwise, there will be more dysfunctional people, which we don't need.  On the other hand, I want functional people to avoid abortion for the most part, because we need more functional people.

It drives me crazy when the 'right wing' tries to condemn abortion because it is popular among our more dysfunctional minorities, and points out that Sanger wanted such people to dwindle in number in favor of more advanced people. Yes, she did, and that was a good thing.

For me, though, it's not a matter of it being a 'right.' Maybe it is, but it's a right that should be exercises sparingly. Like a lot of things, it's a good thing when it's used for a good purpose, a bad thing when used for a bad purpose. When it improves the gene pool, hooray.  When it diminishes it, alas.

Well, all this was inspired by the below, written by Matt Bailey:

Perhaps the single best example of suicidally putting ideology over reality for emotional reasons is the spectacle of Conservative and some Libertarian opposition to legal abortion. Not only does trying to ban a desired service like abortion massively increase the intrusiveness of government, the statistics regarding terminated pregnancies make it clear that the Right essentially wants to force welfare recipients to produce more future parasites, prison inmates, and Democratic voters. Arrant madness. Even if one were unaware of the statistics, one could easily reason that intelligent women with some concept of future consequences are already using the many kinds of effective birth control available and very rarely resort to abortion. Thus most terminated fetuses are genetic copies of an individual who could not figure out "advanced" technology such as condoms, and who wishes to avoid having a child so much they are willing to have the fetus sucked right out of them. Whoo boy, that's a great parenting prospect there! And of course, as this little article points out, the timing of the otherwise inexplicable drop in violent crime after the 1980s is perfectly explained if one considers all the little bastards who DIDN'T get born because of Roe vs. Wade.…/files/99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf
Quibcag: The illustration is Ayuka Oka, from Mysterious Girlfriend X (謎の彼女X. Nazo no Kanojo Ekkusu)., because she's good at catching everybody's eye.

Man is a Pack Animal

Everybody from liberals to conservatives to libertarians claims to be scientific, but for the most part, none of them are. The left is always pointing out the fact that some conservatives are creationists (and leaving out the fact that some liberals are also creationists in exactly the same way) while the right mostly cedes this to them and only argues a little about it. This isn't going to be about global warming and other "science" parts of political ideology, but about the very simple fact that almost all ideologies at base deny the nature of man. It all comes from not understanding Darwin.

Okay. There are several ways of getting it wrong, and very few of getting it right. The Blank Slate theory informs most liberal (and some conservative and libertarian) thinking these days. Basically, it's a denial of heredity and the faith that environment determines everything about human beings. Utter nonsense. It leads to disaster in public policy wherever it's believed.

The second big way of getting it wrong is to assume that human beings are individualistic animals. WHAT?  A libertarian denies individualism?  No, not really. Most of the human race — by nature or nurture or both — is pretty darn collectivistic. Libertarian ideology shouldn't deny that, but instead look for ways to make mankind less collectivistic and more individualistic, because we mostly think that individualism is a good thing.

Again, by genetics or culture or some combination of both, certain portions of humanity are more individualistic than others. Europeans more than nonEuropeans, Brits more than other Europeans, Americans more than Brits. But no human beings are completely individualistic. We're pack animals, as Matt Bailey points out. We're not some herd of egalitarian ruminants, nor are we whatever that cat is that want nothing to do with others of his species — tigers, is it? We speak languages, and seem to be most comfortable in tribes of 20-100 individuals. We have occasional hermits, but they are outliers, and are usually only temporary hermits. We seem to be more like wolves than any other familiar animals in that respect. We form hierarchies, we pass wisdom from individual to individual, and pass it on to our descendants. We can do some things best by ourselves, some things best in cooperative or hierarchical groups. When you understand all that, then you can promote individualism without going against human nature.

But, face it. Individualism to any extent is pretty rare with humanity. Most of the species has never heard of it, and if they did hear of it, wouldn't like it. That is why, if you want to live in a comparatively individualistic society, you have to limit the membership of that society to individualistic people. And, hard as it may be to swallow, that means limiting it to European-type people, and the more Northwestern the better.
Quibcag: That's Lum, of Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら)., and I don't know why I picked her to illustrate this, except that she looks kind of evolutiony.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

The Decline of the West, or Neale's Weekly Gun Rant for 3-29-2015

We start off this week with a lament from Mama Liberty that more and more people don't want freedom. Of course they don't. One of the biggest misconceptions of mainstream libertarianism is that people mostly do. What most people want is to do what they want, which isn't the same thing as "freedom" in any meaningful sense at all. If that seems paradoxical, just think — doesn't Obama want to do what he wants? That tinpot dictator of North Korea? Politicians everywhere? Ah, "freedom" has to mean a condition where people in general are free to do as they want, constrained only by the limits imposed by the rights of others. That's a weird idea, in space and time, and most people don't want anything to do with it. People in the know, know that such a condition can obtain only in a polity where most people want it to be that way. In short, it's pretty much limited to Western Civilization, and within that pretty much to Northwest European people, and within that to British and British-derived people, and within that to Americans who are British-derived. So with every immigrant who doesn't fit that template, freedom becomes less and less possible. Neale says other stuff. Good for Krogers. I used to work there, back during the Johnson Administration. Post Office surveillance? Hmm. Another righteous shooting story. And another. Some idiot activist church. A cops shooting wrongly story — BTW, I take all such stuff with a grain of salt, especially considering the media orgasm over the Charleston shooting that seems to be what they're dreaming about finding. I'm not ready to judge that one yet, nor should you be. This week's illustration is from Yurikuma Arashi (ユリ熊嵐?, lit. "Lily Bear Storm", "Yuri Bear Storm" or "Lesbian Bear Storm") I don't explain 'em, I just post 'em. Now to Neale:

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant for 3-29-2015
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

We're starting this off with a new author, Mama liberty. Ok, she's not new, in fact, she's been my go-to Gal for a long time. [Link]. Mama is usually a pretty up-beat lady, but this one has echoes of my bad days. It's called "Nobody and Everybody".

More and more I'm hearing less and less from people who used to be serious about freedom, especially freedom from the bogus "authority" of non-voluntary government. More and more of what I read in the forums and blogs tells me that these people are tired of the fight, burned out in their efforts to communicate. They either give up the fight or just go silent. 

So many of the freedom oriented blogs I visit have become little more than a platform for complaints about government. Lots of outrage and condemnation, but little offering of any reasonable counter measures except "letters to congressmen," lawsuits and the usual political activities we've been trying for so long —even when it is quite clear that they have little or no hope of any real change from such things. There are exceptions, but most of them still seem to cling to the "constitution" and the "bill of rights" as magic bullets that will set everything right if people would just accept those chains. And this, of course, means that they still believe that non-voluntary government, one way or another, has that authority. 

So, more and more often, people I talk to are wondering if there are any others in the world who think like they do—or even close. Some are convinced that "nobody" really wants freedom, and that "everybody" is too stupid to see the truth, prepare reasonably or ever take personal responsibility for themselves. I am tempted to indulge in that thought pattern sometimes myself, but I truly think there are a great many people in our world and communities who might well be our allies, if we only knew them.

And the worst part of what she says? She's correct—I DO often think most people out there have given up. Too many people actually believe the government is good overall, there's just "a few bad apples" in it. You're wrong. In fact, the opposite is true—Overall, the government is evil, with just the occasional good apple in there. It's not true. Government is a tyranny over minorities, and the smallest (and most numerous) minority is the individual.

I REALLY wish a Krogers was around here. Why? Because they are basically ignoring the Morons Demand Surrender... er, Moms Demand Action, Bloomberg's false-flag "grass-roots" movement. [Link]

According to a new interview with Kroger CFO Michael Schlotman, the grocery store chain is not about to give in to the demands of Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. The group turned their attention to Kroger in August of last year, insisting that the store stop letting customers openly carry firearms on the premises. Appearing on CNBC's Squawk Box, Schlotman said the store would continue to abide by state laws. 

"If the local gun laws are to allow open carry," Schlotman said, "we'll certainly allow customers to do that based on what the local laws are. We don't believe it's up to us to legislate what the local gun control laws should be. It's up to the local legislators to decide to do that. So we follow local laws, we ask our customers to be respectful to the other people they are shopping with. And we really haven't had any issues inside our stores as a result of that." 

While it's gratifying to see a corporate chain stand up the pressure from the left, the fight for "gun sense" in America is far from over. Moms Demand Action, led by activist Shannon Watts, has proven to be a powerful force in the gun control debate. A former PR executive for Monsanto, Watts brought her public relations experience to the fight for gun control after the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Today, MDA boasts more than 200,000 members and—thanks to a strategic partnership with Michael Bloomberg—millions of dollars in funding. And they have used that support system to bring legal, political, and social pressure for stricter gun laws.

Stand strong against the scum, Krogers.

Now the USPS is doing surveillance runs on the American people, ala the NSA.[Link].
The "Mile High" state might have bee one of the first to legalize marijuana, but voters in the western state know for a fact they didn't sign up to be monitored illegally by USPS surveillance cameras. Even though it was never authorized it looks like the state decided they were going to do it anyway.
Which is why when the local Fox affiliate discovered a "spy camera" sitting outside of a Golden post office they decided they needed to put everyone on alert. 

Infowars reports on what happened next. Make your own judgements if anything suspicious was going on. 
A face and license plate scanning camera was torn from the ground outside a Colorado post office this week less than one hour after being discovered by local reporters.
The camera, run by the United State Postal Inspection Service, the postal service's law enforcement unit, was hidden inside a utilities box near the exit of the Golden Post Office. 
Now you vill be vatched at ze Post Office, Ja!

Oh, have I said recently that supporting gun control hurts women, minorities, the elderly, and the handicapped? Well, it does! As this "Well Armed American" clearly shows. In fact, in this case, it hurts a handicapped AND a minority male.

Good thing guns protect the handicapped too. When a man in a wheelchair and his friend got into an argument with three others, they retreated into their home to ensure violence didn't erupt from the encounter. 

The three men must have been itching for a fight, because after the two men locked themselves in their apartment, they kicked the door down to continue the fight. 

That's when the man in the wheelchair sprung into action. 

A Tulsa News network wrote on the shooting: 

Police are investigating a double shooting during a home invasion.
We're told the door had been kicked in at the Suzanne Apartments near 11th and Mingo about 12:35 a.m. Thursday.
"We did find two males that were deceased apparently shot inside the apartment," Tulsa Police Sergeant Gillian Phippen said.
KRMG has now learned the names of the two men are Kejuan Shields and Demario Harris. Another man, Tymalk Love, jumped out of the window and ran away.

Police believe Shields, Harris and Love got into an argument outside of the apartment. The resident and a friend went inside the apartment and locked the door.
Investigators believe shortly after that, Shields, Harris and Love broke into the apartment and assaulted the resident's friend.
The resident, who is in a wheelchair, grabbed his pistol as his friend was being assaulted and shot Shields and Harris, according to police.
The wheelchair bound resident and his friend were interviewed and released. The investigation is ongoing. 
It's pretty obvious if the man in the wheelchair didn't have a gun things could have been much worse for the two. 

Imagine what would have happened if three men unleashed their violence on a man who couldn't move his legs. The outcome would likely be quite rough. 

That's exactly why his ownership of a hand gun was the right and prudent thing to pursue.
Surely his friend agrees, don't you think? 

Damn good job, Sir. And some fine shooting, too! Oh, wait! If the lying Victim Disarmers were correct, I'd be opposing letting this young wheelchair-bound black man have a gun. But then, I'm not Michael Bloomberg.

Well, this particular "Well Armed American" is a retired cop, but it's STILL impressive that he did so. [Link].

A civilian risked his life to save a man who was being attacked by a crazy wielding a knife in Salt Lake City last week. The fact that he has a permit to conceal and carry certainly didn't hurt. 

The civilian is a retired police officer and felt compelled to get involved. 

The civilian, who asked to be identified only as 'Nick' said, "I was just driving in my car on North Temple, (when) I saw a guy pull a knife on another guy, a fight ensued, the guy with the knife was swinging it several times at the unarmed person," said Nick. 

Nick's training and his heart responded. He went into action and moved in to stop the altercation and pull his gun on the suspect. 

"I see somebody in need of help it's just the right thing to do, the wrong thing to do would of been to turn my back and have somebody be stabbed because I didn't do anything." Nick. "I told him to lay down on the ground and he stayed there," Nick said. Without getting further involved, Nick used his common sense and a little patience, called 911 and gave his location and a brief detail of what had happened. 

Good work, Nick.

This affects us all. An activist church, which owns a few Wal Mart shares, wants to tell Wal-Mart what to sell, how to sell, and what it may not sell. [Link].

A U.S. appeals court showdown looms next month for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in a case with potentially broad impact on how much influence investors can have over their companies.

The dispute concerns Wal-Mart's sales of assault rifles with high-capacity magazines. New York's Trinity Wall Street church wants shareholders to vote on a resolution calling on Wal-Mart's board to review management decisions to sell the weapons, as well as other products that could harm the company's reputation.

A district court sided with Trinity in November and said that Wal-Mart has to include the proposal on the corporate ballots it will send out this spring. Wal-Mart appealed, arguing that the shareholder resolution meddles in regular business decisions and is at odds with decades of guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission that such affairs are off limits.

Of course, the story fails to mention that the church ALSO wants to violate the 1st Amendment, as well. Trinity Church also wants stockholders to vote on whether Wal-Mart may sell music and videos with "adult content" such as nudity, foul language, drug references, and sexual content. While, as the story points out, Wal-Mart doesn't sell "adult films" or music with warning labels, it DOES sell "R" rated films, and even some "NC17" films. Which could effectively forbid them from selling most films.

I'd like to work for this boss! [Link].

A law office in Iowa is rewarding staff members who tote guns to work with a monthly $50 bonus. As a registered NRA instructor, Davenport attorney Eric Puryear says he wanted a way to combine his law practice and his passion for the Second Amendment."About four years ago I thought well, I'd like to see more employees exercise their right to carry if they so choose, how can I incentivize that?" Puryear told NBC affiliate KWQC.Puryear, whose law office carries a sign that reads "Guns are welcome on premises," says he instructed three of his employees last month, and that his motivating factor was the promotion of responsible gun ownership.


This article contains actual footage of a black man being murdered by cops—6 seconds after asking a mentally ill man to drop his screwdriver in his front door, he takes 6 bullets and dies while his mother cries. [Link]. I can't say anything else—this poor man didn't deserve to die.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Chuck Baldwin on Rand Paul: Pros And Cons

I've been trying to figure out just what to say about Rand Paul, and Chuck Baldwin has beaten me to it, saying pretty much what I think. I'll add that it's hard to figure out why Rand is trying to pander to Black voters, because he surely must realize that it's a waste of time, as the only way to get Black votes is to promise them free stuff. The quote in the quibcag is a real one, evidently, and you can read about it HERE. I have to say, anybody who uses the term "disparate impact" seriously is not likely to be taken seriously by me. Maybe he's trying to persuade White liberals that he's a right-thinking guy. I'll also add that the issue for me is immigration, and I certainly don't trust either Paul or Cruz on this one. If a candidate pops up who is wrong about on everything except immigration, I'd be very likely to vote for him. Demography is destiny. This is from

Rand Paul: Pros And Cons

On Tuesday of this week, Rand Paul made it official that he is a candidate for the office of President of the United States. As I did with Ted Cruz a few weeks ago when he announced his candidacy for President, I want to give readers a preliminary assessment of Senator Paul’s pros and cons. Be mindful, again, that this is a preliminary assessment and is subject to change as more information becomes available.

For those who may not know, Rand’s father, former congressman Ron Paul, and I have been friends for many years. I campaigned heavily for Ron’s presidential campaign in 2008, and again in 2012. I even represented Ron in some notable Republican campaign events during that time. And I also spoke on the same platform with Ron and introduced him in several large rallies. And, after Ron dropped out of the Republican primary in 2008, I was approached by many of his supporters to carry the liberty message into the general election as the Constitution Party’s candidate for President. This I did, and when I did, Ron publicly endorsed my candidacy. Through my friendship with Ron, I had the privilege to meet Rand and, as with his father, I like Rand a lot. Readers need to know that up front.

That said, this preliminary assessment of Rand’s candidacy will be intellectually honest and objective. Readers need to know that, too.


*He is his father’s son

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the greatest U.S. congressman in our country’s history. While we have had several outstanding U.S. House members, no one can match Ron’s incredible record. Without a doubt, Ron Paul is the U.S. House of Representatives’ most preeminent champion of liberty. And you know the old saying: the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I believe that is certainly true with Ron’s son, Rand.

And you can believe that establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., believe that, too. As soon as Rand announced his candidacy, neocons such as Senator Lindsey Graham began their attacks against him. Graham went so far as to say that Rand Paul’s foreign policy is worse than Hillary Clinton’s. (That’s because Graham and Clinton are both warmongers, and Rand isn’t.) Rest assured, the GOP establishment will spend the entire primary season trying to make sure that Rand Paul does not receive the Republican nomination.

*Rand’s foreign policy

This is where Rand Paul shines. Like his dad, Rand believes in a constitutional foreign policy. He is opposed to America’s foreign wars of aggression. He is opposed to America’s preemptive war doctrine instituted by G.W. Bush. He is opposed to the Warfare State and all of the entangling alliances that go along with it. In fact, Rand Paul is the ONLY candidate for President from either the Republican or Democrat party that would probably make any significant change in America’s foreign policy.

And quite frankly, the office of President is mostly defined by foreign policy, and in this regard, Rand is probably the only candidate that would be willing to defy the war-mad neocons and bring America’s founding principles back to our State Department and DOD. Ted Cruz won’t do it; Ben Carson won’t do it; Scott Walker won’t do it; Marco Rubio won’t do it; Mike Huckabee won’t do it; Mike Pence won’t do it; Rick Santorum won’t do it; Chris Christie won’t do it; Jeb Bush won’t do it; Hillary Clinton won’t do it; and neither will Martin O’Malley. In reality, when it comes to foreign policy, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Except for Rand Paul, that is. Rand is the ONLY presidential candidate who would potentially restore a constitutional foreign policy to the United States.

*Rand Paul is solid on the Bill of Rights and the right to life

Rand Paul is solid on the right to life and the Second Amendment. But unlike the rest of the presidential candidates, Rand is also solid on the rest of the Bill of Rights. In the name of the “war on terror,” politicians from both parties in Washington, D.C., have mostly eviscerated the Bill of Rights. For all intents and purposes, the Fourth through Tenth Amendments are mere words on paper. Both Republican and Democrat congresses have gutted them to the point that they are unrecognizable from their original intent. Rand Paul is the only presidential candidate who gives more than lip service to the Bill of Rights.

Accordingly, Rand Paul is the only presidential candidate that would probably use the power of the office to alleviate, or perhaps even dismantle, the burgeoning Police State in this country. This is another reason why Lindsey Graham and other neocons in Washington, D.C., hate Rand Paul.

*Rand is the Republican who has the best chance of winning the general election in 2016

Rand’s popularity will come from just about every quarter, except the Washington establishment. He will pull support from not only conservative, Tea Party, and patriot groups, but also from libertarians, independents, college-age and young Americans, and anti-war Democrats.

An MSN report notes, “Paul's speeches and media coverage have helped him break out of the Republican field. In very early trial heats of the presidential race, Paul regularly gets closer to Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, than his so-called establishment rivals. In a March poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, Paul tied Clinton in Pennsylvania, a state no Democratic candidate for president has lost since 1988.”

See the report at:

Rand’s challenge will be winning the Republican nomination. The GOP establishment will go all out to defeat him. But, if he can prevail in the Republican primary, he would undoubtedly be the strongest GOP candidate in the general election. But, remember, the Republican establishment would rather lose with neocons like John McCain and Mitt Romney than win with a principled freedomist like Rand Paul. So, Rand has his work cut out for him.


*Illegal immigration and amnesty

So far, Rand has been soft on his stance against illegal immigration and Barack Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals. Rand’s principal opponent in the GOP race will be Ted Cruz; and Cruz’s tough stance against illegal immigration and amnesty is very popular with most Republican voters. If Rand continues to take a soft position on illegal immigration, it will give Cruz a leg up with many of the GOP electorate.

*His support for Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell

The decision to support Mitt Romney for President in 2012 cost Rand a lot of popular support. Romney was a Democrat in Republican clothing. Romney’s socialized medicine program in liberal Massachusetts was the blueprint for Obamacare. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. And Mitt Romney flipped-flopped on so many issues (including the life issue) that he more resembled Silly Putty than he did a serious presidential contender. There was no telling which way Romney was going to bounce next. And Mitch McConnell is the consummate establishment politician. No genuine conservative respects McConnell.

I understand why Rand endorsed Romney and McConnell. He was trying to show the Republican Party that he was willing to work with the GOP leadership. Plus, as the freshman senator from Kentucky, he didn’t want to make a political enemy out of Kentucky’s senior senator (and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader). But endorsing Republican candidates that were fundamentally flawed positionally and constitutionally was something Ron Paul was never willing to do. And that uncompromising commitment of Ron Paul was one of his most endearing qualities. As such, I am extremely honored to be the only candidate for President since Ronald Reagan that Ron Paul endorsed. In my opinion, that says more about Ron than it does me.

When Rand endorsed Romney, it angered untold numbers of principled conservatives. That anger still exists. These folks are worried that Rand will be too willing to work with unprincipled Republicans in the future. This fear is something Rand MUST successfully assuage if he is to unify the base that he needs to win the Republican nomination.

*Rand’s recent homage to Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby

This is another area where Rand’s father, Ron, was never willing to compromise. Ron had a constitutionally-correct understanding of America’s relationship with Israel and other Middle Eastern nations. And due to the constitutional ignorance (and scriptural misinterpretation regarding the modern state of Israel, thanks mostly to preachers such as John Hagee) of most Christian conservatives, it was this issue that most alienated many of them from Ron’s presidential campaigns. Doubtless, Rand is trying to circumvent that potential opposition from within the conservative Christian community by showing them, “See, I am not my father.”

Noted political researcher and analyst Joel Skousen put this in perspective recently, saying, “Rand Paul has the same problem [as Ted Cruz]. He’s decided that he can’t get ahead in politics without being a yes-man to the Israeli lobby, and so he takes his pilgrimage to Israel, meets with Netanyahu and other politically connected Israelis and pledges to stand with Israel. The problem with that position, as I’ve explained many times in the WAB [World Affairs Brief], is that Israel’s leaders are all compromised globalists (especially Netanyahu) so Christians have to learn to separate their allegiance to God’s promises of restoring the house of Israel to their homeland and the aggressive globalist policies of the Israeli government.” Amen!

What most Christian conservatives don’t seem to understand is that Ron Paul’s position on Israel (and other foreign nations) is actually the best policy to help the people of the Middle East (including Israelis) that the United States could possibly have. The neocon, pro-war, New World Order (NWO) policies that began under George H.W. Bush, and that continue to the present, are the most destructive policies in the entire world at present. The entire world (including the United States and Israel) are suffering (and will suffer) incalculable tragedy at the hands of these wicked globalists if they are not soon deterred. How tragic that Christian conservatives--who sincerely believe they are being a blessing to Israel by supporting a neocon foreign policy agenda--are actually assisting Israel and America’s worst enemies. And, once again, no other presidential candidate from either party will potentially do anything to challenge the neocon, NWO agenda. If Rand Paul doesn’t do it, no other Republican or Democrat presidential candidate will.

Obviously, it is too early for me to actually endorse a presidential candidate. I am willing to say that, at this juncture, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the two men who seem to stand out. But, since Ted Cruz’s foreign policy is in lockstep with the neocon agenda, and IF Rand Paul can continue to demonstrate a genuine commitment to oppose a neocon foreign policy, he would definitely have a leg up in my book.

And unlike many conservatives, I am NOT impressed with Dr. Ben Carson. His support of government-forced vaccinations is anathema to any person who truly understands the principles of constitutional government and liberty. Anyone who could claim to be opposed to Obamacare and then support government-forced vaccinations is truly confused and directionless.

See the report at:

Plus, Dr. Carson talks out of both sides of his mouth regarding gun control. He says he supports the Second Amendment, but then he turns around and says, “It depends on where you live.”

“Appearing on Glenn Beck's radio show this past week, Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn't be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.

“Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: ‘There's a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.’

“But when asked whether people should be allowed to own ‘semi-automatic weapons,’ the doctor replied: ‘It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I'm afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,’ Carson elaborated. However, if you live ‘out in the country somewhere by yourself’ and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, ‘I've no problem with that.’”

See the report here:

I’m sorry; the Second Amendment is an issue I will NOT compromise. And Dr. Carson’s statements demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the liberty principles behind the Second Amendment. It is those people who live in the most populous--and, therefore, the most dangerous--areas that most require a semi-automatic weapon (rifle or pistol) with which to defend themselves. What good does a firearm do if one is “out in the country somewhere by yourself”? Dr. Carson demonstrates vast ignorance regarding the God-given duty of self-defense. So, I can say with a certain amount of confidence that I will NOT be supporting Ben Carson for President.

So, again, this is my preliminary assessment of Rand Paul’s candidacy. And as I said in my column assessing Ted Cruz’s candidacy, I reserve the right to adjust my thinking one way or another as more information becomes available.

© Chuck Baldwin
The girl being shocked by Rand's bizarre quote is Nagato Yuki-chan from