Will The Real Rand Paul Please Stand Up!




Rand Paul

" Libertarian" Rand Paul supports a federal bill that would arrest marijuana users. Typically this type of statement from a right-wing Republican would not be newsworthy. However, in the case of known flip-flopper ' any which way the wind blows' politician Rand Paul this is a complete about-face from previous statements made by the senator from Kentucky.



Seems this self-proclaimed Libertarian Republican politician who has positioned himself  as the champion of the anti-government crowd has no problem with big government [Federal Government] from intruding the rights of states to regulate marijuana use.  Matter of fact, he's all for it. Very quietly, as in the " hush of the night," senator Paul supported the Republican-controlled House of Representative's measure called ' Enforce The Law Act." This bill would allow Congress to sue the president for not faithfully enforcing laws. In this case Federal law. The type of rules these so-called Libertarians loathe.

“We write laws and he is just deciding willy-nilly if he likes it he enforces it, if he doesn’t, he won’t enforce it, and we really think he needs to be chastened, rebuked, and told that he needs to obey the constitution,” Paul said. 

This position  is a complete departure from previous comments from Rand Paul where he indicated support for the states to set their terms regarding marijuana use. On March 24, 2013, he[Paul] told Fox News,

“The main thing I’ve said is not to legalize them [marijuana and synthetic recreational drugs] but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time.” [See Source]



Rep.Bob Goodlatte (R-Va)

Our staff here at the House of Public Discourse are well aware of Rand Paul's knack for playing of words. His base made up mostly of uneducated poor white people, and anti-government and white-supremacist groups don't catch these contradictory statements, or they don't care.

Paul, cannot claim ignorance for this flip-flop. One of the senators that introduced the bill Bob Goodlatte (R-Va) submitted a committee report citing President Barack Obama failure to enforce federal marijuana laws as an example of his federal overreach. 



Back in 2013, the Justice Dept.,[ See Source] proclaimed it would not contest states marijuana laws. According to multiple sources many in Congress, support the president's action or inaction regarding this subject matter.



 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)

“It doesn't seem right to me to continue to waste our limited resources punishing people for doing something when it's legal under state law, the majority of Americans want it to be legal, and much more dangerous drugs like heroin are making a comeback,”

This bill passed the House with 228 Republican votes. 181 Democrats voted against the bill. At first, it was doubtful that Rand Paul would have a chance to vote on this with a Democratic majority in the legislature. However, with the results from the 2014 election giving the majority to the Republicans and impeachment of Barack Obama swirling around this bill could and very likely will be revisited. If the bill does come before the senate,  it will be one of those moments that beg the question, " Will The Real Rand Paul Please Stand Up!"

Is Capitalism A Threat To Democracy?

It is stunning following the Wall Street crash, how there has been no expression from any key player from Wall Street of regret or apology for having brought down the entire economy. Nor is there any sense of shame or embarrassment in their continuance to extract exuberant bonuses for producing nothing for the whole of society. There are even traditional conservatives who hold this view. This writer comes from a traditional conservative background. I grew up in a small community in North Carolina called Rosewood. My family raised me to believe in local control, community responsibility, and community values.

However, over a period, I came to realize there are two different definitions of conservatism in the Untied States. One is about the aforementioned traditional values that my family raised me up to believe. I can honestly say for the most part they brought me up focusing on the positive aspects as opposed to the hate element we see in conservatism of today.

What Are True Conservatives Like Today?

The traditional meaning of conservative is a monarchist. One which advocates monarchical rule.[Source: Dictionary.com] The word originated when the term democracy took root in America. The Conservatives were the ones defending the monarchy and central control.  Tension has developed among Conservatives who believe in  global elitist government and those who believe in local and state control. In many ways based on this "writers" understanding of conservatism, there is reason for concern when you see a concerted effort to centralize control.

The world today is all about globalization. The global economy. Huge corporations are parading as a person. The whole dynamic that we have been introduced to as globalization is a process driven by these companies for their corporate interest. They want to eliminate national boundaries, and reduce the capacity of governments to create regulation that maintain a sense of community interest and national interest in the economy. Companies have consolidated their power to rule the world without any democratic accountability. What is interesting is the counter to this corporate globalization. The behavior of these corporate entities has awakened the American people and restored the desire to return to a time when community values and keeping the local, state, and national economies close to home. There is now a globalization of people power. In my view, within this framework we must learn as a society how to work together collectively regardless of  one's political ideology.

You Cannot Have A Capitalistic Democracy! 

Milton Friedman

In many ways, capitalism and democracy are a contradiction of terms. Think about the Milton Friedman's and Ron Paul's and the whole Libertarian babble about free markets and freedom. At best, their sense of freedom is restrictive. It's not the freedom of the working person to control their lives as they see fit.[See Source]  The Libertarians don't like democracy. The freedom they speak of is the freedom to submit oneself to control by a higher authority.[Free Markets] [See Article] The reason the Libertarians don't like democracy is because they are Capitalist. Libertarianism in the United States is, in fact, an extreme example of what true Libertarianism is not. They are in favor of private  tyranny. The worst kind of tyranny!Tyranny by unaccountable concentrations of wealth. When they [Liberitarians] say we don't want government interference in the markets, they mean it. The type of intervention they want to block is the kind that would permit constraints on the utterly irresponsible behaviors of the super-rich.

Corporations are a prime example of private tyranny.

It's worth bearing in mind how radical in opposition this is to classical liberalism.         

Modern-day Libertarians love to invoke Adam Smith.  But, if you read Adam Smith he said the opposite. Libertarians claim Adam Smith was opposed to any form of government control. This presumption is not valid. Adam Smith was in favor of government regulation as he put it "when it favored the working man." He [Adam Smith] was against interference when it benefited the masters. That is classical liberalism. Libertarianism as called in the United States is a concocted methodology which is a complete contradiction to classical liberalism principles. It is astonishing the amount of people especially young people who are attracted by this complete fabrication by design. They say Adam Smith; they invoke him all the time. He was an icon of his time. Many factions considered Adam Smith a radical in his day. Why? Adam Smith was very much an anti-capitalist. Smith condemned the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. All for ourselves and everyone else could just " fend for themselves." Sound familiar! It was Adam Smith who championed the phase and doctrine called the invisible hand.

What is Meant By The Term " Invisible Hand."

Adam Smith rarely even used the term invisible hand. The term is mentioned once in his signature literary work " The Wealth of Nations." The context is an argument against Neoliberalism. Smith argued that if a company in England invested abroad and imported from abroad it might  be profitable for the business but would be harmful to the people of England. Sound familiar! However, they will have enough of a commitment to their country. [home-bias] That if by a. " invisible hand," they will keep to the less-profitable actions, and England will survive what we now call neoliberal globalization. To summarize, England was at the time an agriculture producing nation. Suppose some landlord accumulates an enormous amount of land. This reality creates a situation where everyone else has to work for the owner. Smith held the position that this would not turnout to badly because the landlord will be motivated by his natural sympathy for other people that he will make sure the essentials of life will be equally distributed. This practice in turn will create an equal distribution of wealth as by some invisible hand.

In Wealth of Nations, in the first couple of pages Smith talks about the butcher and his interest. The baker and his interest and this conflicting interest created what came to be known as a division of labor. However, how many have read a couple hundred pages into the work where Smith bitterly attacks the division of labor. Smith pointed out if you pursue the division of labor people will be directed to actions that they will repeat the same mechanical operation over and over. What this reality does is deskill a person. Smith advocated this would turn people into stupid and ignorant as a human can get. Therefore, in any civilized society the government will have to intervene to protect the will of  " We The People." This view is very different than the one held by Libertarians today. A Capitalistic Democracy would self-destruct and for the most part did during the Bush II administration and after decades of Reagan's trickle-down economic theory which mirrored the invisible hand concept. And, with the current time disparity in the distribution of wealth this hand has surely been invisible.

Reagan's Trickle Down Was A Prime Example of the Invisible Hand Debacle!

Guess What? Republican Tax Cuts Don't Work, And The Only Thing That Trickles Down Is Deficits!

Guess What? Republican tax cuts don't work, and the only thing that trickles down is deficits. In the 2010 mid-term elections, the Republican Party had a field day. Due to lack of involvement the Democratic Party took the election off and will pay dividends for years because of it. Not only has it allowed for stalemate in our national and state-wide governance it has created a helpless state of gerrymandered safe-zones for Republicans.

It was about this time last year, when the GOP was ranting and raving about the unemployment, the ill effects of Obamacare, and how it was ruining our economy. And, of course, the deficit. Quite frankly, with a politically uneducated American electorate the GOP was salivating with talking points for the now nearing 2014 mid-term elections. What a difference a couple of good financial reports, in the last several months has had on erasing those aforementioned talking points. See, time is a revealer of the truth. As reported earlier this month, in a historically right-wing financial Bible for lack of term, "Forbes," it was indicated that, in fact, Obama has out-performed Reagan on jobs, growth, 

investing and the deficits. 

There is an example after example of how Republican ideology fails not just in the social arena but in the financial realm as well. Cases in point. In 2010, Kansas voted Republican Sam Brownback as its governor. He got right to work cutting taxes. One of the biggest realities that the Republican Party and its adherents tend to overlook is that when you cut taxes-"taxes get cut." Subsequently, revenue could not keep up with expenses that will create a shortfall of about $900 million by fiscal year 2019. [Source: Bloomberg Business Week] This action by the so-called Tea Party favorite Brownback got the states credit rating downgraded by Moody's Investment Services which stated it was the states tax plan that was the main reason for the downgrade.[Source: Washington Post] 

In 2010, a Republican Governor took over in the state of New Jersey. Chris Christie. You know the one-time Republican front-runner for president before." Bridgegate."[See Article] One of the first things Christie did once in office was to cut taxes. Once again, seemly shocked to realize that by cutting taxes you cut revenue the state had a whopping $807 million revenue shortfall which added yet another self-imposed misery on the  wonder-boy of the Republicans.[Source: NJ.Com] 

What is apparent to this writer is this is a trend. These are not isolated occurrences. In 2010, North Carolina elected Republican Pat McCory to be governor of that state. In step, with his republican ideology he gives the wealthy a tax cut which in turn blows up the state's budget. These tax cuts created a deficit to the tune of $445 million. [Source: WRAL.com] Once again, its like a reoccurring nightmare that will not go away. Tax cuts wreck economies, slowdown growth, and wipe-out job creation. In fact, as I reported back last year in a Liberal America article  the good Governor raised taxes on the poor and middle-class to attempt to soften the blow, which in practice gave many of the very people who voted for him in that state a tax hike.[See Article] What were the reasons for these failures? According, to these governors, it was Obama's fault. Right, blame it on the black guy. 

While these Republican Governors were busy blaming Obama for their failures, a report was released on a budget that Obama was the overseer of " The Federal Budget." which indicated a 107 billion dollar surplus.

“Compared to the size of the economy, the deficit in 2013 is much lower than in 2009, when Obama took office. The deficit will be 5.3 percent of gross domestic product this year, nearly half the 10.1 percent of GDP in 2009.” [Source: Forbes]

 Republican's, Have Tried To Focus Their Media Echo Chambers On False Scandals To Avoid The Reality Of Falling Deficits Under The Obama Administration. 

Deficits Have Lowered At A Historic Rate Under President Obama's Term.

Republicans have purposely ignored these historic reductions in our nations deficit under Obama. Over the course, of the last two years and the entire Obama term Washington has been eaten up with fake scandals and left field conspiracy theories. To be honest, it would be hard for the most dedicated political study to keep up with them all much-less a causal follower of politics. While the Republican Party was blowing our tax dollars trying to repeal Obamacare a law that the majority of Americans are in favor of and voted for in the last two elections. Is it not clear that the Republicans are suffering from a new form of political dysfunction called the ' Deficit Attention Disorder." In English,what this means is that the GOP does not want to face the music that the deficits are falling at a historic rate under Obama. This drop has been unexpected. And, the truth is it has caught the Republicans off-guard. One of their most relied talking points for the 2014 mid-terms has evaporated. In a Washington Post report, the Congressional Budget Office[CBO] claims the deficit problem has been solved for the next 10 years.  

The conundrum for the Tea Party, Republican Party, and Libertarian's is their mantra of public discourse, they're tried and true rallying cry, of how liberal and progressive policies,  are unsound  has been discredited by facts and empirical data. It's as if the. "carpet has been jerked from underneath their feet." All we have heard from the right from politicians like Sen. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is how Obama refuses to do anything about the debt crisis. A picture of the egg in the face comes to this writer's mind. Where are the Republicans celebrations? Where are the front page headlines? Where is Fox News telling us what a great day it is to be an American. Any logical person would think this economic upturn would draw praise from the right. But, the realities of this polarized world we live in comes into focus. All we have heard from the right is Benghazi-Benghazi-Benghazi.

As a writer, my goal is to make one think and ask questions. What were Republicans doing when all this good news about our nations economy hit? Trying to repeal Obamacare for the umpteen thousand time at a dastardly cost  of millions to We The People. We The People voted overwhelmingly for Obamacare, and to see it start to pay dividends and be a positive influence on these very deficit reductions brings the ole ' please pass the jelly," commercial to mind.

What is Obamacare?

One of the biggest determinants to our debt as a nation has been health care. With the implementation of Obamcare between 2009 and 2011, total health care spending grew at the slowest rate in the last five decades, at just 3.9 percent per year.[Source; New York Times]  Health care cost are coming down which was one of the goals of Obamacare. Where is the " that a boy,'" from the Republicans? As a student of politics all my life, this writer has insights on this question. When politicians in Washington are talking about deficits, in fact, they are not. Truth is republicans don't care about the deficit and haven't for a long time especially since Reagan. The reason the republicans are not lauding the president for lowering the deficit is that they don't care.

There Has Been One Person In Washington For Sure Who Cares About Deficits And He Now Has The Stats To Back It Up. 

What the Republican Party has done for decades now is use the deficit as a cloaking issue. As the House of Public Discourse reported just last month, the Republican Party relies heavily on  poor, uneducated white people for votes. They use this issue to get the base all riled up knowing that most of their constituents don't know or care that they the Republicans have been the biggest villains in terms of driving up our nations debt. George Bush, Jr ring a bell. If not, do a Google search on the growth of our nations debt under Reagan. What the Republican Party is sayings is they want to cut spending on social safety net programs and  first-step help initiatives to compensate for their giving the wealthiest members of our society tax cuts. These are the very tax cuts that have driven downgrades and revenue short- falls in mostly red states.

What is paramount in the now, is that the Republican Party once thought to be a shoe-in to take back the Senate and House and pick up more Governor seats is in serious jeopardy. With these vanishing talking points, the only real hope for  Republican's is a low voter turnout like in 2010. Many are predicting that to be the case. As a liberal progressive writer, I harken back to the ole baseball saying " say it isn't so, Joe." We will see if these predictors hold true. But, this writer is an optimist and Guess what? Republican tax cuts don't work, and the only thing that trickles down is deficits.

     

Separation Of Church And State, Unplugged.

In America today, there is no more polarizing issue than the separation of church and state clause in our Constitution. The issue was highly debated at the inception of our country, and the debate continues today.

What does the Constitution say?

The phrase " separation of church and state," has been bandied about in our society for so long most people are dumbfounded to learn that neither the phrase or its concept as it is presently used can be found anywhere in the founding documents of the United States of America.   The phrase " separation of church and state," doesn't appear in any government document of the United Sates. Not the Declaration, Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This reality being the case, what do these documents have to say about freedom of religion? In the 1st amendment we see mention of religion. Congress shall make no law; (1) respecting an establishment of religion, or (2) prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So, this 1st amendment is a very important part of both our Constitution and our constitutional law. These two aspects of the 1st amendment came the phrase " separation of church and state." 
Many constitutional scholars debate this claim. Firstly, the governing branch of this issue is identified. Congress. Secondly, it defines the activity that Congress is forbidden to do. Make no laws, respecting religion or the freedom to practice or not to practice. Let's take a moment to explore what this means. In this writer's view, these proclamations were  placed first for a reason. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble are all basic tenants of our culture. With that said, it's also important to understand there are two parts to this equation. Not to establish and not to stop the exercise of religious views one way or the other.

Its important to note that there were other variations under consideration at the time these issues were being debated by our founding fathers.

• No religion shall be established by law. (House Select Committee-7-28-1789)
• Congress shall make no law touching religion. (Proposed during House debate- 8-15-1789)
• Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or mode of worship or prohibiting free exercise of religion. (Senate Version 9-9-1789)

What is very evident with any fair evaluation of the data and history is that Congress would not set up any national religion, denomination, or church. Moreover, that Congress would not set up any "state controlled " church. There is no ambiguity concerning these matters our founding fathers were empathic that government was to stay out of religion and vice versa. The scope here is specific. The Executive branch nor the Judicial branch were even mentioned.  And, here is why. If no laws are to be passed by Congress then, there will be no laws for the President to enforce, and no laws to be interpreted by the courts. The bottom-line is the Federal government has no jurisdiction to intervene of matters of religion and for the most was left to the States, Cities, and local communities.  Nor, does religion or religious factions have jurisdiction to intervene is the affairs of " We The People." [Government]

Conservatives Want to Redefine Religious Freedom To Suite Their Political Ideology.

Conservatives in America want to expand the power of religion and their religious organizations. The facts have shown they do this with no regard they are undermining the basic principles of religious freedom.  Religious freedom is not a general liberty to conservatives. To them it's not a matter of one's personal conscience; they won't religious freedom to be some unique type of liberty. Conservatives claim they deserve special treatment and favor unavailable to others who do not share their religious convictions. Yes, it is clear that the founding fathers wanted government to stay out of religion, and it is also clear they wanted religion to stay out of government as well.

Libertarianism Is Not Only Wrong, It's Dangerous!

Abraham Lincoln 

We are living in ever-changing times. These changes are happening in all facets of our lives. On the political front, there are more and more people who call themselves or at least identify with what has come to be called libertarianism. Over the last year, I have been putting to study the behavior and attitudes of these pro-claimers of liberty and justice for all. Frankly, I have not been impressed with their narrative from their outspoken correspondence which makes comments like. "You sure love letting people steal your money!" 
Moreover, their behavior brings to mind the famous quote from one of the most popular presidents of all time, Abraham Lincoln.

"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln

To a libertarian, property rights are sacred. Any government is bad. Capitalism has no flaws, and the capitalist are the modern-day nobles of our society. Worker rights and activism is evil. Lastly, they feel the poor are pampered and "good-for-nothings," who should be left to fend for themselves. For example, an outspoken libertarian Murray Rothbard, who claimed to be such an intellectual, advocated a dangerous spew to the least common denominators of our society. The libertarian’s emphasis is the demagoguery of government and taxation, and here is an example of his rhetoric:

   

Rothbard was an early pioneer of modern-day libertarianism. In a nutshell, libertarianism is a radical anti-state political philosophy. It unites a free-market system of economics,with a no exception attachment to property rights, a so-called profound love of human liberty and a love of peace, with the conclusion that society should be allowed to develop with no interference from the state whatsoever. In fact, the libertarian feels there should be no state,  period. The libertarian hates worker unions. They [Libertarian's] claim labor unions pursue policies that disrupt a capitalism in action that is the cause of their prosperity.
Renowned libertarian Ludwig Von Mises once said:

Ludwig Von Mises

  

       "What is today euphemistically called the right to strike is in fact the right of striking workers, by recourse to violence, to prevent people who want to work from working."

With The Libertarian Who Needs Facts?

One thing this writer has uncovered in research of the libertarian and the followers of its ideology is that facts don't matter. Who needs facts, seems to be their mantra. Studies have shown when people leave one ideological extreme they usually end up in another. The methodology of the libertarian is not that hard to follow. Oppose their perceived evils of the world with a fairy tale; "Obama coming to take your guns, Obama is a Muslim and not a natural born citizen who is going to hand America over to our enemies, there is epidemic voter fraud." These are but just a few of the libertarian backed fairy tales of our current times. The bottom-line is the academic libertarian loves abstract, fact-free arguments. This type of behavior may go over well with like-mined right-wing authoritarian followers, where nobody is going to pull the old fact-checker out. But, en masse, it matters to the American people and time after time these flawed untruths being levied by deep-pocket backers of the Libertarian party have backfired on the libertarians.

The Libertarians Think They Are The Modern Day Founding Fathers!

All the modern day political parties want the founding fathers on their side. The facts, with any earnest study, clearly shows all modern day political parties laid their roots in the 1700s. All of us are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and independents against the monarchy which hovered over us, and we fought as a nation to unleash ourselves. We all fight for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. History has revealed to us times when our founding fathers not only encouraged rants against government, but led the charge. There were also times when our founding fathers were against rants of rebellion, anarchy, and the anti-government rhetoric that has become so common-place in today's environment.

James Madison

"It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end."

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."

 

"All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it."

The Constitution of the United States is the very definition of a strengthened government. The Federalist Papers were nothing more than an extended argument in support of the Constitution. In fact, the founding fathers comprised a balance that was arbitrary and coercive. Fast forwarding to modern times, the founding fathers had no way of foreseeing the New Deal. There was no need for this type of action back when our nation was being forged. However, there are examples when the founding fathers were quick to resort to the resources of the state as quick as any modern day liberals. For example, Ben Franklin, played the Pennsylvania legislator like a "piano in the dark," using it to fund a hospital he wanted to establish. One of the first instances in our nation’s history, using the state to do good social work. It's also worth bringing to the light that the founding fathers' words were much nobler than their actual deeds. Most were quite comfortable with owning slaves. Women were given no voice whatsoever. George Washington himself, by executive order, made it a crime to criticize the government.

For almost 150 years, in fact, the Bill of Rights was paid lip service in patriotic orations and ignored in the marketplace. It wasn't until after World War I that the Supreme Court began the process of giving real meaning to the Bill of Rights.[ Source: Robert Allen Rutland]

Why Are Libertarians Dangerous? 

The libertarians are dangerous because of their growing influence within the Republican Party for starters. Then there is the emergence of the radical Tea Party, which is nothing more than the repackaging-of-the-fascist-playbook. These people are political crackpots and are, usually, harmless. However, with America electing a black president, the Republican Party hierarchy began to come to the realization that its Southern strategy no longer can win national elections. Catering to the lowest common denominator in our society; the uneducated, racist, anti-government types, and their fairy tale propaganda is spurning not only division among people in America it is emboldening anyone with an ax to grind. To act out in violent anti-social ways which have brought on the genesis of new terms like ' hate crimes', and 'don't tread on me,' mentalities. With the already flawed doctrines of the Republican Party being proven to be failures, we see a faction develop that says we must hang on to power no matter what.  In short, Republicans have taken the libertarian mantra that " government is bad," and run with it, largely with the help of deep-pocketed influences like the Koch Bros. Judicial decisions like corporate-person-hood and money is free-speech and lastly gerrymandered voting districts we are, in fact, looking at a governess by organized mob. Take all of this into account with the following  Republican doctrines already in place and we have a civil storm brewing in this country. This storm is why Libertarianism is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Here are just but a few of the ills of the libertarian's influence on the Republican Party.

Reagan's "Government is the problem."

Phil Gramm's contention that the country's "economic crisis" and "moral crisis" were due to "an explosion of government."

Talk radio hosts' advocacy of armed resistance to "jack-booted government thugs."

Dole's 1996 campaign, advancing the notion that taxes were "Your Money" being taken from you.

Gingrich's Contract with America (welfare cuts, tax cuts, limitations on corporations' responsibility and on the government's ability to regulate them)

Dick Armey's comment that Medicare (medical aid for the elderly) is "a program I would have no part of in a free world."

Bush's tax cuts, intended not only to reward the rich but to "starve the beast", in Grover Norquist's words: to create a permanent deficit as a dangerous ploy to reduce social spending.

Jeb Bush's hope that the Florida state government buildings would one day be empty.

Intellectual support for attacks on the quality of working life in this county and for undoing the New Deal.

   In closing, here is a video by an ex-libertarian who, mind you, clearly states his narrative is a worst case scenario if the libertarians were to gain a foot-hold of our We the People government. For one, this writer hopes never to see such a day. 

Written By: Johnny Hill