A true conservative candidate vs a libertarian. Part I

A true conservative candidate vs a libertarian. Part I


by Don Hank


A libertarian who says he is more constitutional than the rest


Before you read this, check out this video.


Ok, here’s what I saw when I viewed it.

I was impressed by Ron’s observation that defending individual property would have been a more effective approach to combating pollution than making federal environmental safety laws. This may be a simplistic notion, but Ron does at least think outside the box. (They say Newt is “smart” too, but that was last week).

He also said he would save $1 trillion a year. That was a major promise, and if you’re focused on the economy, it carries a lot of weight. A promise that just might win an election on its own.

On the Constitution, he knows the original document well and basically understands states’ rights.

On the other hand, what he said on seat belt laws, narcotics laws and gay marriage made me cringe.

Here is what I heard:

Seat belt laws are bad because they rob the individual of freedom.

Partly true. But if there were no seatbelt laws, the insurance companies would have to insure the idiots who don’t use them at the same cost as the smart people who do. No one would say to their insurance agent, when asked: Nah, I don’t believe in seat belts.

Insurance rates would have to go up because there would be many more people injured and killed in accidents. That would affect us all. This is libertarianism gone amok. On the other hand, would these deleterious effects be anywhere near as significant as the effects of not stopping the runaway spending by government? And Ron promises to do that.

Narcotics. Ron thinks we should all have the right to use drugs that may cause us to harm ourselves. Unfortunately, when people fall into drug use, they do things that hurt not only themselves but others and they cost agencies like the police and social assistance and charitable agencies a whole lot of money – for example, when users, especially addicts, steal to get drug money, or perpetrate violence due to a state of stupefaction and a subduing of conscience. I had shown that the libertarian take on drug use legalization is nothing but pure propaganda:


Ron is wrong on this issue. But again, could drug use cost more than the current runaway spending by government? Maybe not.

Gay marriage? He didn’t use the word, but we all know what part of the interview that was and we heard him say he was bored with the subject.

What he failed to say, and may fail to understand, is that the state and national governments are moving toward the acceptance of a new and radical definition of marriage at the insistence of a radical group that has shown itself to be not only undemocratic but also violent at times. It is part of cultural Marxism, the original purpose of which was to prepare the ground for economic Marxism. Thus, ironically, while paying lip service to the free market, libertarians like Ron may well indirectly contribute to the malaise of the socialism they eschew.

Further, with regard to same-sex marriage, Ron ignores the fact that government has no right to or interest in changing standard time-honored definitions of words, not for any reason. Language has always been the domain of the people, and the changes in language, as well as its preservation, is supposed to be up to the people, not to a few whiners.

Ron Paul also seems to ignore the dangers of creeping Islam. Now, assuming Paul is not part of the elites that want to import hordes of Muslims to our shores, that may be a moot point. But can’t he identify what common sense tells us?

His idea that Middle Eastern dictators like Ahmadinejad deserve our “friendship” (not mentioned in the interview) could also be a problem. Militarily, Reagan cost America fewer lives than the presidents who came after him, and not because he made nice to the enemy but because he scared the bejeebers out of them.

Ron’s position on abortion has also been shown wanting by one of our contributors earlier today, who says that under the 14th Amendment, the executive has the duty to protect the Constitutional right to life of every citizen — born or unborn. If this position is derived from the Constitution, then it is not a matter of states’ rights, as Ron so blithely insists.

This is a real watershed issue because it separates godliness from wickedness. You don’t even have to know the Bible to understand that.

Those are some of the blemishes.

On the other hand, if Ron is willing and able to make good his campaign promises, he may turn out to be the best enemy the Fed and their cronies could ever have, and hence, no doubt the best friend we the people could have in combating a runaway Congress bent on spending us into oblivion. He could perhaps turn out to be another Andy Jackson and send the bankers packing. But yet, critics point out that, in his tenure in Congress, Ron has not made significant inroads in this direction. So is he just a talker, like Obama? Or will he, at age 76, have enough energy, mental clarity or will left to roll up both sleeves and fight as promised?

No doubt the US would still be standing after a Ron Paul presidency.

No doubt most people would still be using seat belts.

No doubt most marriages would be traditional ones.

Ron’s ideals are not all my ideals. But then a $15 or 16 trillion debt is even further from my ideal because it is a direct threat to our existence. And it is the reality we live with.

Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:

RINO Romney is for illegal aliens:


RINO Newt is for illegal aliens:


LIBERTARIAN Ron Paul is for illegal aliens


Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade


Further reading:


9 thoughts on “A true conservative candidate vs a libertarian. Part I

  1. Sorry, Don,

    There is no “on the other hand”! The lesser of two evils is still evil as the late Terry Anderson always reminded us. If you compromise with your positions just to get the Marxist out of office, what about the anarchist you’ll have put in there?

    Of course, no one in his/her right mind believes that Ron Paul will get the nomination, so much of this is moot. Some of the base will vote for him in the primaries but nationally, he’ll only do well in NH and a few other states. I don’t believe he’ll win ANY state. He’s “the gadfly of the GOP”, a Libertarian trying to pull the wool over our eyes and fortunately, enough of us can see this. There IS no “on the other hand”!

    Here are three reasons not to support Ron Paul:

    1) He’s for unbridaled Amnesty for illegals and that means many millions more will flood into the U.S. With 40 to 50 million already here, we’re unable to handle anymore. Anarchy is already spreading to many of our large cities thanks to illegal Santuary ordinances.

    2) He’s for legalizing illicit drugs, not just marijuana.

    3) He would leave us vulnerable militarily and give the Islamists a leg up if not more instead of going after them with surgical strikes wherever we find them.

    There are other reasons, but these are enough for me.

  2. I am surprised by the shortage of comments here. But maybe I shouldn’t be.
    The last time I ran an article that was only a little critical of Ron Paul, I was inundated by responses supporting Ron Paul, many of them angry.
    Perhaps the hardcore Paul supporters only know how to throw stones but can’t deal with facts and cogent arguments?
    If so, they aren’t far from leftists.

  3. People will differ with Ron Paul over this or that issue. Of course they will differ with every other candidate in the same fashion. The key and only question, however, is who among the candidates will reduce the size and power of the federal government so that it heads back to its constitutionally limited boundaries. Paul is the only choice here. The only one. The others want to increase federal power, most by leaps and bound sand a few by smaller steps.

    As to issues like insurance, you assume the state should continue to mandate it. Paul would say no one should be compelled to buy insurance. Isn’t that the claim with Obama care too? Yet we never ask it about auto insurance. Disconnect.

    As to federal bans on abortion, the 14th amendment never gave the federal government let alone the President the power to unilaterally prohibit abortions. I have read these arguments and they come do to claiming the president can implement Martial law across the USA to ban abortions. Limited government be dammed if it will save one life is the cry of tyranny. That’s just a ploy for more federal power. The history of anti-abortion laws in this county never looked to the federal government to enforce state criminal code violations. The state legislatures stepped up and adopted state anti-abortion laws. Now that our minds are predisposed to considering every question as a federal one, we jump on this language and make it say what we want. But the truth is that the federal government was never trusted with enforcing state criminal codes or exercising a broad jurisdiction over crimes.

    As far as drugs, again, this issue has given the federal government tremendous power to destroy the fourth amendment and is another example of federal intrusion into areas which were always considered the province of state law. And even looking at it Biblically, God gave authority over every seed bearing plant to men, not any government. The end game is total government control over food and drink for our own good. God is not behind such a totalitarian approach to self government. He does not even force a man to confess salvation for his soul, how is it that we believe Caesar has authority to save his body?

    Regarding marriage and sodomy. God defined marriage. The state has no authority to alter it. Nor does it have authority to regulate or license it. Yes that is right. It can provide tax advantages to promote it. It can divide property upon its dissolution. But the conservatives have granted way too much power to the state to protect it through state criminal law.

    Finally, as to the warfare state and fear of Islamist, the Constitution grants no such power to the President to wage war on his on terms and without a Congressional declaration. Even beyond that, America is not the world’s police man under the Constitution or the law of nations, and should return to the wisdom of the framers in staying out of the wars of Europe and the world. We do nothing but create enemies that way and are blind to think we can bring democracy to any country not equipped for self government. Paul is the voice of reason on the American Empire. Pat Buchanan is also good here too. The rest are warmongers and reminds me of the fatal attraction expressed by Israel when they demanded Samuel set up a national government lead by the King for the very purpose of waging war like everybody else. It lead to an oppressive tax and slave system under Solomon that the People rejected through civil war. The same is happening here.

  4. I left the following response yesterday, but it never was posted. Here it is, again, in case there was some cyber-glitch:
    Don says, “…what he said on seat belt laws, narcotics laws and gay marriage made me cringe.”
    Well, Don you’re right on one of three.
    First, let’s take seat belt laws. Paul said, “Seat belt laws are bad because they rob the individual of freedom.”
    Don says, “Partly true.”
    No, Don it is 100%, UN-debatably true. All laws restricting behavior, good or bad, rob the individual of the freedom to engage in that behavior. It’s an inescapable fact. The question is whether the behavior is 1. morally wrong and 2. a legitimate State interest.
    Your argument is shocking. You are concerned that your insurance rates would go up.
    But what does the Bible say on the subject? Easy: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
    Your problem, Don, is your participation in voluntary collectivism. Your desire to be financially linked with unbelievers for the purpose of sharing risk for which you are not willing to trust God. Or is it involuntary? Does your state have fascist insurance laws, intervening in the private sector on behalf of the unbeliever? Do you oppose them? Or do you like Government Economic Central Planning?
    You want people to be forced to behave in ways that facilitate your private transaction with an insurance company, to make it cost less. Why not get a law that forces everybody else to pay your insurance cost to begin with? Yes you can. Yes you can.
    If your state has fascist (mandatory) seat belt laws, you could get your rates to go down, immediately, by giving everyone back their freedom and making the insurance companies compete for business.Check Mass. health care.
    Don says, “This is libertarianism gone amok.” No, don. That is conservatism. Lowering your insurance bill is clearly NOT the proper role of government.
    On Narcotics, Don says “Ron thinks we should all have the right to use drugs that may cause us to harm ourselves.”
    That is a subtle twisting of what Paul actually said. He thinks we should have the right to use drugs that may harm us.
    And, although I agree with your conclusion, and disagree with Paul, I still disagree that “increased social service costs” are a valid reason. They are not. Drugs that harm people should be illegal because they harm people, but the increased cost of socialism as a result of legal activity is NOT a reason to make any activity illegal, it is a reason to end the socialism. This is very clear, as it happens, in immigration. We give away the store, providing a living (food, clothing housing, education, medical care, laptops) to illegals and then compensate by demanding that the borders be closed. (Barn door, horse).
    Your conclusion to the drug issue is also a bit shocking. You contrast “increased costs of drug use” versus the “savings” Paul would bring by ending runaway spending.
    But this suggests that, somehow, a Ron Paul Presidency would obliterate drug laws in the 50 states. That’s absurd. To the Contrary, Ron Paul is the last man that would do that. He is very clear that the States have jurisdiction in drugs. Bringing up his “bad” position on an issue to which his Presidency is completely impervious is a deception. It has nothing to do with his Presidential candidacy. I hope you wrote this inadvertently, not attempting to actually deceive people into thinking it is a valid issue. It has no more to do with a Ron Paul Presidency than his taste in old movies (even if you deeply disagree with his taste in old movies)
    But you are totally out to lunch on the next issue.
    “Gay marriage… we heard him say he was bored with the subject.” Well, no, Don, he said he was “tired” of talking about it. And you should be too, because it is totally irrelevant and an intentional misdirection.
    His policy position on this is identical to Santorum and Bachman and Romney.
    There are no federal marriage laws and none of them propose any.
    Bringing this up can be little more than propaganda, like showing that he likes a stupid old movie in hopes that someone in your audience will (stupidly) decide not to support him over it.
    Don says, “What he failed to say, and may fail to understand, is that the state and national governments are moving toward the acceptance of a new and radical definition of marriage at the insistence of a radical group that has shown itself to be not only undemocratic but also violent at times.”
    No, Don. He fully understands this and his position is totally opposed to it. Over and over again he has reiterated his opposition to the intervention of the Federal Government in this way. Ron Paul: “I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.” Moreover, while most Congressmen sat, flat-footed, Ron Paul vehemently denounced Lawrence v. Texas.
    Don says, “Thus, ironically… libertarians like Ron may…contribute to the malaise of the socialism they eschew.” How? By preventing gay marriage? That’s absurd. Ron Paul explicitly has rejected and opposed all gay marriage laws. Your representation to the contrary is your imagination. If I didn’t consider you on my side, I’d call you a liar. You’re not, but this is a slur and untrue.
    Don says, “Further, with regard to same-sex marriage, Ron ignores the fact that government has no right to or interest in changing standard time-honored definitions of words, not for any reason. Language has always been the domain of the people, and the changes in language, as well as its preservation, is supposed to be up to the people, not to a few whiners.
    Again, you write, apparently, from pure ignorance. Ron Paul:
    I think we have fallen into a trap where we have to redefine marriage. We’re on the defensive trying to redefine marriage. Why don’t you look it up in the dictionary and find out what marriage says. For federal legal purposes the Defense of Marriage Act is proper and it takes care of all the problems. If you have to have rules and regulations, put it at the state level like the Constitution says.

    “Ron Paul also seems to ignore the dangers of creeping Islam.”
    And you feel the Federal Government has a role in preventing a religious belief from spreading, Don?
    But can’t he identify what common sense tells us?
    He does.
    Don says, “Militarily, Reagan cost America fewer lives than the presidents who came after him, and not because he made nice to the enemy but because he scared the bejeebers out of them”.
    Both, Don. Carrot and Stick “Trust but verify” Reagan understood the difference between a real war and an undeclared, undefined, vacillating, interntional police action without a definable, determinable end. Had Reagan initiated a “War on Communism” militarily, we’d still be in wars he started all over the globe. Would we have exterminated China yet?
    Ron Paul: “If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw. We do not engage in nation-building.”
    Reducing our enemies to rubble would not need to be done more than once or twice, and would be very economical. But ending a human characteristic, or a world religion, despite that it makes you “feel” righteous, is a chimera or genocide. It is demonstrably un-Christian.
    But this is outrageous:
    “Ron’s position on abortion has also been shown wanting by one of our contributors earlier today, who says that under the 14th Amendment, the executive has the duty to protect the Constitutional right to life of every citizen — born or unborn.”
    Suffice it to say there is NO Presidential Candidate now or in recent memory, who shares that position. I’ve been watching the debates carefully since 1980 and I’m unaware of any Republican Candidate in that entire period who shares that interpretation. I think it is a clear Constitutional misinterpretation. But even if it is not… if this is some new revelation, an unprecedented epiphany, it is ridiculous to suggest that Ron is worse because he agrees with every Originalist Constitutional scholar and every Republican Presidential Candidate in our generation than are the others who have the exact same position. And dishonest as criticism.
    Don says, “…a matter of states’ rights, as Ron so blithely insists.”
    Now you’re getting abusive. Just what do you mean by “blithely”?
    If I shoot my mother-in-law will the Feds arrest me for a Federal Crime or is murder a State’s jurisdiction issue, smart guy?

    Don says, “This is a real watershed issue because it separates godliness from wickedness.”
    No, your handling of this issue separates honesty from dishonesty.
    You say Paul might do good things on monetary issues, then: “But yet, critics point out that, in his tenure in Congress, Ron has not made significant inroads in this direction.”
    Try to think clearly about this, Don. I’ve been fighting the Fed since the ‘80s. Even Republicans who agree with me have always begged me not to make motions to that effect on platform. “No one understands it.” I’ve always been told. Ron Paul secured co-sponsorship from a majority of both houses of Congress for Audit the Fed. He made this a key national issue single-handed. But here’s an analagous criticism: “Before he became Prime Minister, what significant inroads did Winston Churchill make against the Nazis?”
    You end, I’m sad to say, with a compendium of deception.
    Ron Paul’s presidency would have nothing to do with seat belts.
    Your implication that he favors “non-traditional” marriages is just a lie.
    Your suggestion that Ron Paul is “for” illegal aliens when he would remove EVERY REASON THEY COME HERE, is disingenuous.
    But you end with a plug for Michele Bachman… who just was AWOL when we needed her to oppose the “Total Suspension Of All Constitutional Rights For Innocent American Citizens By Presidential Designation” bill on the floor of Congress.
    There is no excuse for this. This is not a matter of your contributors new interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This is a real watershed issue that actually DOES separate godliness from wickedness.
    And she let us down.

  5. Response to Levine’s “three reasons not to support Ron Paul:

    “1) He’s for unbridaled Amnesty for illegals”

    Levine you’re a liar.

    Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

    1.Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    2.Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    3.No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    4.No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    5.End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    6.Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

    “2) He’s for legalizing illicit drugs, not just marijuana.”
    He is for Constitutional drug laws which defer to each State. He has no designs on and is no remote threat to Legal drug enforcement. Try reading the Constitution, Levine.

    “3) He would leave us vulnerable militarily…”

    This is a lie and entirely fabricated.

    “and give the Islamists a leg up if not more instead of going after them with surgical strikes wherever we find them.”
    If you mean that as you wrote it,Dave, you are calling for the extermination of fundamental Muslims, worldwide. Your answer, Mr.Levine, to Islam is IDENTICAL to Adolf Hitler’s answer to Judaism. “To exterminate them wherever we find them.”

  6. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=298533

    Tom Tancredo writes:

    I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. We didn’t see eye to eye on every issue, but he was generally an ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it appears that Paul’s views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.

    Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.” One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before.

    The result is not pretty. Paul’s book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. He says that immigrants “have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.” He also claims, “It’s hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant.”
    My opinion:
    Doug and the thousands of Paul supporters want us to be nice and are outraged when we tell the truth about their candidate.
    Yet Ron Paul constantly insults us. He insulted Michele Bachmann by saying she “doesn’t like Muslims.” Not true. She never once said she didn’t like them. Ron said Rick Santorum “doesn’t like gays.” Also an outrageous lie.
    And as we see above, Ron considers us racist if we object to Mexican invasion, even though there are, conservatively, 11 million of them here (more realistic estimates put the number at 2 to 3 times that many, or more). Yet we are supposed to equate this massive invasion with the modest number of Europeans and Canadians who move to the US.
    I like what Ron is NOW saying about immigration. Too bad he wasn’t saying these things before the campaign.
    BTW, I am not truly sold on any of the candidates. For example, I note with dismay that neither Ron nor Michele Bachmann had the guts to vote against the NDAA. But the obvouis attempt to whitewash Ron Paul is forcing me, and others, to fight back. That is not good, because the more we research, the worse it gets for Ron and the less time we have to focus on the flaws of our own candidates.
    I am perfectly willing to admit my candidate is badly flawed (abstained from NDAA vote, voted for Patriot Act, etc — I hope she has learned since).
    The unwillingness of the other side to admit what we can all see is forcing us to resist more strongly than we otherwise would.
    Perhaps Sapient was right when he called Ron’s followers cultlike.
    It’s scary.

  7. Trying to lump me in with a stereotype is indefensible.
    This has happened for years, directly associated with the “Star of David Strategy” (http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/?s=sds) to treat Ron Paul Supporters, in the 2008 convention/caucus process, with the Goebbels media strategy for Jews in the early 30s.

    And then, with all the name-calling come the responses;
    Warmonger, Neo-con, Statist.

    National faux “conservative” press call Paul names to the exclusion of reason. They do it regularly without conscience. It strongly suggests they can’t actually debate him.

    Among conservatives I have long-time friends who are furious at the name-calling done by Paul supporters, but, when I investigate, I always find that it started on the other side, first. The Establishment is supposed to get a pass, apparently, with ad hominem attacks. It is so common to hurl slurs at Ron Paul supporters, it goes unnoticed.It has become invisible, sort of like “Nigrah” in the old South.

    Don says, “The unwillingness of the other side to admit what we can all see…”
    Be specific. What is it that you “see”? That Paul has ideas (that have nothing to do with the Presidency) that are wrong? What Paul would do if he were elected dictator of a State is a pretty far-fetched premise for a criterion.
    Paul says the government should be out of marriage. I plainly disagree. But the principle is, nevertheless, an absolute wall against the government imposition of gay marriage.(Paul fought for DOMA.) And that’s all the gay rights movement wants. They have absolutely no interest in “marriage” for any other reason, except as a means of government-imposed legitimacy.

    I held a sign for a US Senate Candidate in front of Mariner Stadium in 2004 who highlighted his defense of Marriage position.In liberal Seattle, I got walkers-by offended by it. “Do you support gay marriage?!” they would ask, confrontationally. By the second time I had the best answer ready: “Are you saving yourself for it?” They were tongue-tied. No concept of “marriage” has anything to do with the gay lifestyle. The problem isn’t “gay marriage” but government imposition of culture. And Paul is as strong against THAT as anyone.

    On the other hand, if you ARE looking for a cult leader, what they think about issues irrelevant to the Presidency might be quite important! If you want a President making periodic statements about homosexuality, for instance, or “keeping your thermostat low” Ron Paul is a poor choice.

    Donald Trump, I’m guessing, might be the most gifted (in the original field) at making newsworthy, irrelevant comments.

  8. Doug

    Before I forget, hope you and yours have a most blessed CHRISTmas.

    I noticed you did not respond to my article “Outing Ron Paul.” My comment to Carol go for you too if you would care to weigh in.

    BTW: Ron Paul has been outed by his supporters as a closet voluntaryist / anarchist, not me. So, there really is no sense defending that any more, he has admitted he takes those positions and “likes voluntaryism.”

    Did you know that about him, that he was using the Constitution to hide behind?

    They planned on “dropping the anarchist bomb” on his fans later…and we worried Ron would create too many “We the people types” which were antithetical to his vision if he did not come out of the closet.

    I assume that would be you, right? A truly patriotic guy, a believer…caught up with this guy.

    So, if you knew about it, lets talk turkey without all the smoke.

    If you didn’t know, lets talk about what that means to you now.

    God bless

  9. Pingback: Dekoreji

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *