BluegrassBulletin.com

Ron Paul: "We Need More Bradley Mannings"

Bradley aka Chelsea Manning is a convicted criminal.  But Ron Paul thinks we need more Bradley Mannings.

Why would he say such a thing?  Well, here you go.

Paul called Manning a whistle-blower and noted that he was acquitted of the more serious charge of aiding the enemy.  

“I believe his goal was to inform the American people of the truth about what was happening in the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars,” Paul said. 

Earlier Thursday, Manning said wanted to undergo hormone treatment to become a woman and requested that he be called Chelsea. His gender identity had come up as part of his defense. 

Paul said whistle-blowers — like Manning and NSA contractor Edward Snowden — should be more stringently protected. He accused lawmakers of paying little more than lip service to the cause. [The Hill]

Manning isn't a whistleblower he is a traitor.  Ron Paul thinks Manning did a service to our country by exposing "Black Op" sites and information about how our military had killed civilians.

Do any of us want to kill civilians?  No.  Does our nation condone torture?  No.  But do you really think that Manning helped our country by enraging an already radical movement devoted to killing all of us with his actions?

Recently there have been a number of these homegrown wackos trying to gin up support for criticizing the United States for bombing Japan to end World War II.  Some are saying that it is a double standard for the US to condemn the Boston Bombers while at the same time bombing civilians! 

War is hell.  It's purpose is to kill people and destroy things.  Ron Paul's comments on Manning are evidence of the main reason Ron never got elected president.  But his influence over others is still working the halls of Congress, and for that reason we need to be ever vigilant.

Thomas Massie: Replace The Fed With 'Bitcoin'

Have you ever heard of Bitcoin?  During a recent panel discussion when asked about his desire to end the Federal Reserve (his license plate even says "NDFED") Massie was asked what would replace it and he blurted out "Bitcoin".  I won't try to describe what "Bitcoin" is, I'll leave the research on that up to you.

But up until very recently this Internet based method of exchange which in a sense it's own currency for goods and services is getting some rather mainstream attention.

At its most basic level a Bitcoin is a form of money that can be used to pay for products or services just like the dollar bills that sit in your wallet.

A Bitcoin lives as code inside a computer. It’s intangible, but it works in many ways like cold, hard cash.

To acquire a Bitcoin, you need to buy it with another currency or have someone send it to you in a transaction. To hold a Bitcoin, you need to keep it in a digital “wallet,” a piece of software, on your local computer or you can you can allow a company to hold your “wallet” on their servers.

Bitcoin payments are made by transferring the digital currency between two users’ “wallets.” The fees for these transfers are lower than for more traditional forms of payments, like using a credit card or a bank transfer, because they are not backed by the safeguards and intermediary services provided by companies like Visa or Bank of America.

Bitcoin is “decentralized” meaning that it’s created and maintained by a network, rather than controlled by an institution like the Federal Reserve. The monetary policy of Bitcoin has already been established in a sense, with a cap of 21 million Bitcoins being able to enter circulation to reduce the risk of inflation.

Right now the price of a Bitcoin is around $100.

Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are increasingly drawing the attention of federal and state officials, though many have yet to formally express their views.

The chief worries have been whether they can be used by criminals to launder money, sell drugs, fleece unsuspecting consumers or evade taxes. [POLITICO]

Bitcoin, at this time, appeals primarily to people who dislike government, want to avoid taxes, and have a bit of a radical libertarian/anarchist type philosophy.  It's geeky, operates in its own subculture and requires a more sophisticated level of computer knowledge than your typical grandma who sometimes checks out Facebook.

For these reasons it should come as no surprise that Ron Paul acolyte Thomas Massie may very well be the first U.S. Congressman to endorse using Bitcoin instead of US currency.  How this squares with the people in Bromley, Sligo, Corinth, Perry Park, Covington and Alexandria is yet to be seen. But for a Congressman whose focus until recently has been upon playing "junkyard wars" and building robots the appeal of his latest radical idea is anybody's guess.

"They" Are Coming To Take You Away

It's hard to calculate how the TEA party is going to build its base when they can't seem to keep the freaks and nuts from being a part of their crowds.  Sure, honest, hard working, patriotic folks with energy and money and time are desirable, but far too many conspiracy kooks and radicals get inside the tent.

Take Adam Kokesh for example.  Back in May of last year I showed you a piece about him. At one time he had been endorsed by Ron Paul for Congress.  Later the Paul folks distributed information to their supporters explaining how Kokesh was not allowed to be involved in a Ron Paul event.

Now Kokesh is reportedly under arrest.

Police searched the Northern Virginia home of libertarian activist Adam Kokesh Tuesday evening and took him into custody, according to a news release posted on Kokesh’s Web site.

Kokesh unveiled plans in early May to lead an armed “Open Carry March” into the District on July 4. He described the proposed event, in which he said participants would carry loaded guns across the Memorial Bridge from Arlington into Washington, as an act of civil disobedience against “tyranny.”

Kokesh, a former Marine, was being held at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center, charged with possession of schedule I and II drugs while in possession of a firearm, said Lt. Steve Elbert, a spokesman for the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office.

“We will continue to spread the message of liberty, self ownership, and the non-aggression principle regardless of the government’s relentless attacks on our operation,” the statement posted on Kokesh’s Web site on Wednesday morning said.

“We will continue to combat its desperate attempts to crush a worldwide, revolutionary shift in the people’s understanding of the state’s illegitimacy—after all, good ideas don’t require force.” [Washington Post]

I'm sure some of the Kokesh types out there will consider his arrest just further evidence of tyranny, or part of the plan of the globalists to round up free thinkers and send them off to FEMA re-education camps, you know, "just because your paranoid doesn't mean 'they' aren't out to get you."

At least Ron Paul finally had the good sense to distance himself from the this whacko nutjob. Let's hope Rand and the rest of the TEA party can muster the courage to better filter those around them too.

Massie Thinks Lying About Military Service Is Okay

It is a crime to lie to the FBI, just ask Scooter Libby.  It is a crime to lie to the SEC, just ask Bernie Madoff.  It's a crime to lie on your tax forms.  It's a crime to lie in court.  But if you want to lie about your military service and pretend to be a decorated veteran and defraud the public, some people think that's just free speech.

Which people?  Three, and only three members of Congress, among them Thomas Massie.

The Stolen Valor Act had been part of the law of the land for years until it was struck down by the courts.  But this year Congress took up an effort to tighten up the language and make it more like a fraud statute.  The vote in Congress in favor of the act was 390-3.

People who falsely claim they have received a military medal in order to obtain money or government benefits could face up to a year in jail under legislation that easily passed the House on Monday.

The Stolen Valor Act, sponsored by Nevada Republican Joe Heck, is a second attempt by the House to revive a law on fraudulent claims to medals that was struck down by the Supreme Court in June last year. The legislation is identical to a measure that passed the House overwhelmingly last September but saw no Senate action before the last session of Congress ended. The vote Monday was 390-3.

I can almost anticipate a comment asking who the "three liberals that voted against it" were.  Well, it wasn't liberals, it was three Republican, libertarian-leaning Representatives: Broun (GA), Amash (MI) and Massie (KY). [Burn Pit]

Now you might wonder why a guy supposedly representative of the mindset of the people of Northern Kentucky and the Fourth District would vote AGAINST the Stolen Valor Act.  Well, obviously he is a total Ron Paul groupie as this report of Ron Paul's vote against the act last year demonstrates. But read the justification for Ron's mindset in the last sentence of this quote.

Ron Paul will no doubt receive criticism for his vote Thursday against the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a federal crime to lie about having served in the U.S. military in order to "obtain something of value." A previous version enacted into law was struck down by the Supreme Court in June, after justices deemed the law too vague and all-encompassing. So in response, Congress has recalibrated the legislation to address the court's concerns, and the new Stolen Valor Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 410 to 3. Voting with Paul against the bill were Democrat George Miller of California and Republican Justin Amash of Michigan. 

It is truly astounding that a vast majority of our federal lawmakers believe it's the province of the federal government to act as a regulator of truth and lies. However, no provision in the Constitution gives Congress the power to punish the utterance of lies or have oversight authority over the speech of private citizens in general. [Policymic]

Did you catch that?  The twisted reasoning is that Congress has no power to punish lies?  Tell that to the people mentioned in the first paragraph of this posting.

It's more than just another example of his inability to think on his own without taking direction from Ron Paul, it's a total disconnect from the mindset of the people of this district that prompts Massie to vote in favor of lying about your military service in order to obtain government benefits by fraud!

As one progressive blogger in Kentucky put it:

And his vote makes perfect sense; in eight months on the job, he has yet to cast a single vote that reflects the needs of his actual constituents in Kentucky's Fourth District.

But then, the residents of Northern Kentucky aren't his real constituents: the teenaged Texas teabagger billionaire who bought him the election is Massie's only real constituent.

Related articles

Massie: Forget The Law, I Like What Snowden Did

Oooooo.... Ted Cruz Might Be More Hawkish Than I First Thought

I was skeptical about the way the press referred to Ted Cruz in the beginning.  I remain so today.  It's just the way I treat ALL media portraits.  You see, I've been around this game a long, long time and I pay very careful attention.  So when I read today that Ted Cruz advocated for the USA to invade Syria I had to learn more.  This from his press release:

The U.S. should not provide arms to groups that are loyal to our enemies. Our enemy’s enemy is not necessarily our friend.

“The President would be better off focusing clearly on the one thing that is in our national security interests: securing Syria’s large stockpile of chemical weapons,” Sen. Cruz said. “We know Assad has used these weapons, and there is good reason to suspect the al Qaida-affiliated rebels would use them as well if they could get their hands on them. This poses an intolerable threat not only to our friends in the region, but also to the United States. We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.”

WOW!  A bit of the 'Bush Doctrine' from a guy identified as the TEA party darling?

I know that the TEA party is made up of a lot of "non-interventionists" as they like to be called who see no reason to ever invade any country preferring rather to wait not only until our enemies have amassed arms and armies on our borders but until they have actually rushed across or fired across into our midst.  These folks HATED the Bush Doctrine.  This kind of talk is clearly out of step with the Ron Paul wing of the TEA party.

I'm not sure that the debate to invade or not has been fully fleshed out sufficient for me to suggest such a dramatic move, but clearly Cruz is setting himself apart from the crowd with this kind of talk.  Interesting.

Young Congressmen Acting Like Kids

News broke that a contractor with the NSA stole documents and ran off to China with them, exposing classified information which actions some say have seriously weakened our nation's ability to fight terrorism.  In the process his criminal acts sparked a renewed interest in the topic of domestic surveillance.

And like a bunch of kids who just discovered a way to get attention for themselves a handful of young Congressmen like Justin Amash saw cameras click on and immediately expressed shock and outrage, obviously attracting attention to themselves.  But they look silly.

Little if anything the NSA leaker Edward Snowden revealed was really news.  It was news in 1978 when the Supreme Court outlawed warrantless wiretaps.  It was news after 2001 when the Patriot Act was being debated, and passed by Congress.  It was news in 2008 and later when new rules for the FISA court were being put into place by a democratic congress that expanded the scope of domestic spying.  But today, at best, it's old news.

That didn't keep Justin Amash from wetting his diaper in uncontrollable zeal to announce this:

Well, duh.  The fact that you only got fired up after you heard the camera's click on tells me that you are an immature attention getter.

Some of us have been fighting this for a long time, in the third branch of government, with a track record of warning people about such abuses over and over and over again.

But guys like Amash can't control themselves sometimes which raises substantial questions about their maturity to handle the responsibilities of a seat in Congress.  Watching him and other youngsters flub this whole mess is like watching the look on the face of a couple of fourteen year old boys who find themselves in a brothel.

I'm not a big fan of the political bend of NPR nor of the government funding of their programming, but this article gives you some idea of how long this debate has been going on.

A second program overseen by the FISA court was authorized in 2001 by the Patriot Act. Under the law, the government has collected all for Americans and non-Americans alike. Unlike the PRISM program, metadata does not include monitoring of content per se. Instead, the program orders U.S. telecom companies to provide the government with records of all phone calls made and email identifiers sent through their servers. The information also includes how long individual calls last, the locations that the calls are made from and specific websites surfed.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., author of the Patriot Act, now maintains that the law was not intended to allow such broad information gathering.

Such protestations may be little more than buyer's remorse. Bush and Obama administration intelligence officials say Congress has been repeatedly briefed on this program, a contention backed up by many members of Congress from both parties. Moreover, some point out that telecom companies themselves have sold a lot of this information to commercial entities that want to target particular people and groups for sales pitches.

Intelligence officials point to two legal authorities for the government collecting such metadata. In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court , attachments on the phone lines of individuals to record the numbers of outgoing and incoming calls. A year earlier, the court upheld the right of postal inspectors to review the addresses on the outside of envelopes without a warrant. [NPR]

I don't know what cases and laws Amash read, but even the left which is usually howling about civil liberties violations is confirming that between the court and Congress much of what is being complained about has been a bone of contention for a couple of decades at least.

So before you take a day off work to stand at a rally with the baby faced media hounds and scream like you just learned that the government is weakening your privacy rights, take a deep breath, look back at how we go here, and instead of doing an end zone dance, act like you've done this before.

Yes the momentum may be on our side, but these kids didn't invent the idea of fighting to preserve civil liberties.  Some of us have been doing that for nearly half a century now.

What Have We Done In Syria?

More than a year ago I reported this:

The US's top military officer has warned Syria it could face armed intervention as international outrage grows over the massacre of women and children by tanks and artillery in Houla.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said that following the UN security council's condemnation of the slaughter – in which more than 100 people were killed, many of them children – there needed to be increased diplomatic pressure on Damascus. But he added that the US would be prepared to act militarily if it was "asked to do so".

Shortly thereafter I reported this:

Syrian intelligence agencies are running torture centers across the country where detainees are beaten with batons and cables, burned with acid, sexually assaulted, and their fingernails torn out, Human Rights Watch said in a report released on Tuesday.

The New York-based rights group identified 27 detention centers that it says intelligence agencies have been using since President Bashar al-Assad's government began a crackdown in March 2011 on pro-democracy protesters trying to oust him. 

Then I  made this comment:

How do you people sleep at night knowing that you have it in your power to save millions of people and don't? 

We should be ashamed.

I also pondered this dilemma:

When we see brutal dictators murdering their helpless citizens and we just stand by saying "we must be non-interventionists" it makes me want to puke.

No, I'm not if favor of being the world's police force.  But you tell me, when does discretion equal cowardice?

I called for debate over this issue in February of last year:

Circumstances like those involving Syria give all of us a chance to test the metal in the non-interventionist approach against cries for help from people unable to defend themselves from brutality, genocide and ethnic cleansing, the realities of life in other parts of the world.

I made it perfectly clear that we are not the police force for the world and shouldn't engage in every battle that pops up.  But what have we done?

We did nothing.  We sat back and did nothing, fearful of the backlash of the "non-interventionists".  And now where are we?

Glenn Beck has lost his mind over the possibility that we might now be ready to arm a group of rebels that even President Putin says are a bunch of cannibals.  And at least one of them, the leader of a rebel group, was taped cutting open a dead man he had just killed and eating his organs.

Why are we now left with such terrible choices?  Why are we now left to stand in shock as crazed men kill other men and eat their entrails?

Why are we now left to stand in shock as a dictator uses chemical weapons against innocent women and children?

Why?

The answer is exactly what I warned against.  Inaction, timidity, hesitation all allow the shocked among us to stand and watch a man brutally beat his wife until she has no choice but to fight back on her own with equal viciousness and in the scene we allow to play out in front of us for fear of involvement she becomes as brutal as he and the blood bath sickens us.

Decisiveness and action are lacking in America when it comes to standing up for life and liberty of ALL human beings.

We watch African countries become drowned in blood.  We watch good people starve to death so that kings and despots can rape the riches for themselves.

We watch as religious zealots behead women, kill children, slaughter Christians and mutilate and murder in the name of their prophet.

And we wonder why we end up victims of powerful money interests, feel powerless among reckless plans for world domination and don't seem to be able to make a difference in the world anymore?

That's because we shun the John Waynes of the world in favor of the Harry Potters.  We've turned into a bunch of "low T" socialized nanny boys more concerned about the security settings on our I-phones and Facebook accounts than running into burning buildings to save innocent lives.

Hell, even the firemen in some cities spend more time posing for calendars than their predecessors would ever have allowed.

Am I saying we need to rush into Syria now and arm the rebels?  No, because we have let it become a stinking mess.  We can no longer pick a viable winner in this battle to support and Beck is right, we can't back the terrorists who have co-opted this conflict. But we should learn one lesson.

Soft talk and caution gets you killed in a brutal world. 

What we've done in Syria is perhaps have waited too long. 

May God forgive us.

Which Is More Dangerous, What Was Leaked Or He Who Leaked It?

Ron Paul has praised NSA leaker Edward Snowden.  Snowden as it turns out was a Ron Paul supporter.  Rand Paul referred to the leaks of top secret data by Snowden as "civil disobedience" by a guy at "wits end" who saw "no other choice" but to leak confidential intelligence data to the foreign press. 

John Boehner has called Snowden a traitor who put Americans at risk.  Representative Peter King of New York a Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committee said "the fact he has allowed our enemy to know what our sources and methods are is extremely dangerous..."I think he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I consider him right now to be a defector." [CNN]

Where do YOU see the greater danger?

I predict that some will use this division to further their various agendas as factions of the same party.

Glenn Beck has been whipping the flames of government distrust saying that anybody who has ever said or been sent anything deemed anti government is at risk of being singled out and ruined by the government.

Others like Thomas Massie have jumped on board the fear and anxiety train.  What is really going on here?

Well let me offer you a respite from the highly charged rhetoric and remind you what some of Obama's people have said in the past:  "Never let a crisis go to waste".

Did the government engage in illegal warrantless spying on private emails, phone calls and personal messages between American citizens or not?  Were those running these programs adhereing to legal requirements or not?  Were any areas in which people have a legally recognizable "expectation of privacy" invaded or not?

These things we do not know.  But these things we do know.

A Ron Paul supporter working for a government contractor broke the law and exposed highly confidential security data to the world and Ron Paul calls him a hero, and Thomas Massie says he deserves immunity. The unintended consequence of these immediate responses before all the facts are known could make the concerns of some republicans about the dangers of their brand of radical libertarianism seem suddenly to be justified. 

Right now on any number of websites zealots and fear mongers are operating without complete facts claiming that the rights of citizens have been trampled.  But what if it turns out that the checks and balances put in place by Congress to prevent abuses of data gathering worked?  What if the dam held?  What then?

Then what we would be left with would be very clear evidence that Snowden was indeed a traitor whose zeal was the product of the same kind of anti-government thinking that pervades the Ron Paul movement furthering the division between the factions of the republican party, weakening its chances to win elections and opening up opportunities for democrats that right now appear to be very narrow at best.

We have systems in place and processes created by law designed to get credible answers to the important questions, prosecute the guilty, expose areas in need of change and for implementing that change after careful, thoughtful deliberation and debate.

I know that the speed by which these systems and processes deal with important issues frustrates the radicals and revolutionaries who demand immediate change, but that frustration was installed by design.  Passions can run high and emotional reaction to certain events can spark a massive response and calls for immediate action. These things our framers knew and it is why we are a representative republic and not a pure democracy.

Is it time to be concerned?  Yes.  But jumping to conclusions before all the evidence comes in usually results in a bad outcome. 

So ask a lot of questions.  Probe every scenario.  Don't assume anything and certainly don't let anybody tell you what to think.

For all we know somebody might have put Snowden up to all of this just to create more tension, more distrust, more anxiety and create a crisis the outcome of which could have a number of consequences, one of them being the marginalization of the TEA party as a bunch of reactionary quacks.

Be cautions, studious and alert.  As the judge always tells the jury as the trial progresses: do not make up your mind until all the evidence is in.

Related articles

Massie: Forget The Law, I Like What Snowden Did

Ron Paul: Edward Snowden a Hero

Massie: Forget The Law, I Like What Snowden Did

Edward Snowden is the 29 year old former security guard making $200,000 a year for an NSA subcontractor who leaked the details of classified programs to the left leaning British paper the Guardian.  His actions have exposed a huge domestic spying operation being conducted within the United States government.

And while learning about this "Big Brother" over-reach has confirmed the worst fears of many conspiracy theorists and black helicopter types Snowden's actions have also awakened a host of ordinary citizens to the possibility that our own government may have over-stepped its bounds in the name of national security.

But now a new controversy has arisen which could further splinter the republican party.  Following the lead of his hero Ron Paul, Congressman Thomas Massie says that in his opinion leaking top secret intelligence information to a foreign press should, in this case, not be prosecuted.

“I’m not a lawyer, but based on what I know so far, I don’t think he should be prosecuted,” Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a self-styled libertarian, told CQ Roll Call on Monday. “If someone reports illegal activity as a whistle-blower, they shouldn’t be prosecuted.

“Whether or not this program was authorized by Congress, it seems to me that this is an unconstitutional activity,” he continued, “which would make it illegal, and he should have some kind of immunity.” [Roll Call]

Here's the rub.  Massie isn't alone in his thinking.  Justin Amash of Florida, another Ron Paul protege,  and Trey Radel of Michigan are of like mind.  To them the only law that counts is their own interpretation of the Constitution.

But was the intelligence gathering taking place approved by Congress?  Is there an expectation of privacy in Facebook postings, Google searches, forum or bulletin board discussions "on line"? Are the numbers you call or those that call you private matters or is it just the content of your conversations which are private except to those in possession of a valid search warrant?

If what the NSA was doing was not illegal, (and Massie clearly states that though he is a lawmaker he is not trained in Constitutional law) might his rush to defend what under any other circumstance would clearly be prosecuted as treason raise some serious questions about his own world view?

While Massie and Ron Paul might find much support for their concerns over domestic spying the fact remains that we are a nation of laws.  As such we need to be very careful not to become so over-zealous in our approach to this situation that we begin to behave like anarchists even though at least one self proclaimed anarchist was a significant factor in Massie's election to office. 

Anarchists begin with the philosophy that all government is immoral.  If the debate in Congress breaks down as Massie seems to suggest over whether to exempt from the law certain individuals while holding others accountable to the law, then our "nation of laws" will have devolved back into a nation of men.

The bigger issue isn't whether the government had a surveillance system designed with the intention of ferreting out terrorist plots before they hatched, the real issue is whether we can trust those whom we have elected to office to manage that system legally.

Do we want NO counter terrorism database in the nation capable of connecting dots before they become launch codes for mayhem? Or is it that we want to live in a nation where the moral underpinnings of our elected office holders gives us the comfort and assurance that permits us to live our lives free from worry that the men we have elevated to positions of power will turn that power against us?  And as part of that moral underpinning isn't it really that we want the men and women elected to office to know their legal boundaries and then be able to trust them to respect those boundaries?

If we fear, then hate then want to dismantle ALL government then we are anarchists too.  But if we stop letting the passions of the moment cloud our thinking we can and will make better decisions consistent with our time honored traditions, our system of law and justice and not give in to the political showmanship of a few ego-maniacal people who seem to live their lives in a way where all they seem to care about is to prove to the rest of the world that they are the smartest guy in the room.

Am I glad that we know more about domestic spying?  Yes.  Is there more to learn before rushing to judgement?  Yes.  But calling for a grant of immunity for those who transmit classified information to the foreign press seems to me to put ones own trustworthiness for knowing and respecting legal boundaries front and center. 

Related articles

Interesting: NSA Leaker Now In China, Was China Behind It?

Ron Paul: 'Thankful' for Snowden

The Libertarian Trojan Horse

POLITICO'S headline announces that "Libertarianism Goes Mainstream".  Giving credit to Rand Paul as the new leader of the libertarian movement within the GOP, and his father for having opened the door for libertarians to come in, the article suggests that libertarianism is now at the core of the republican party.

Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), libertarians hope to become a dominant wing of the GOP by tapping into a potent mix of war weariness, economic anxiety and frustration with federal overreach in the fifth year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

“Libertarian became a bad word in Republican circles when it became a political party associated with libertine ideas – meaning you can do whatever you want, you’re not grounded in moral behavior or adherence to certain traditions,” said Jesse Benton, who chaired Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign and managed Rand Paul’s 2010 Senate race. “Republicans value individual liberty, and that means cost-limited constitutional government and respect for individual empowerment rather than an empowered state. In many ways, as libertarianism expands in the party, we’re getting back to its basics.”

But those advocating for more "libertarianism" within the party need to be careful.  Some of us republicans have long memories and quoting Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater on the role of libertarianism as a part of the GOP doesn't erase the rest of what it means. Rand would do well to avoid labels.

Though "states rights" and "individual liberty" are appealing concepts in a vacuum, in practice history supports the conclusion that they have been used in the past to rally people in support of some who had hidden agendas.

In an article I wrote last week I tried to make the point that preserving history has more than one purpose.  When the KKK protested the action of a city to re-name a park getting rid of its current tribute to Nathan Bedford Forrest I noted that one writer found good reason to support the KKK position but not because of racism.  He concluded that many people in the South hold dear the memories of their struggle in the "war of northern aggression."  Think about that.

Forget the involvement of the KKK in that controversy and just focus on how the civil war is being characterized.  Calling it "the war of northern aggression" means that some see that war as being waged between Washington DC trying to impose its will on the people, and the rights of the Southern states to choose their own course.  It also reveals a feeling that Washington was trying to impose it's will on individuals who felt as if they should be free to do exactly as they wanted, as long as they were white of course.

For republicans the war was won by the great liberator, Abraham Lincoln, who stood firmly in defense of the Constitution and saw to it that no man would be denied the God given rights it protected.

After the Civil War many in the south found ways to continue the fight, prompting the passage of the 14th Amendment.  And despite that amendment all the way up through the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century racism was the driving force behind the "separate but equal" notion of individual freedom and liberty.

Are all Libertarians racists?  Of course not and that is not my point, but it is critical that we remember the history of this nation where Barry Goldwater cited "individual liberty" and "states rights" as reasons why he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He made it clear that his "nay" vote was based solely upon principle and his oath to defend the Constitution.  And I don't doubt him.  But is that the end of the inquiry?

It shouldn't be.  Many people make use of and build their own agenda's on the backs of others who are dupped into supporting things on "principle" which turn out to be strategies to achieve the secret goal of the organizers.  How many farm boys who never owned a slave in their lives fought and died in the Confederate army running headlong into canon fire to fight "northern aggression" against their sovereign states and individual liberty?

There are many influences behind the scenes of some agendas and every person should look very carefully into the people driving new movements.  Ask yourselves, who are the Koch Brothers? What connection do they have with the John Birch Society?  What connection do they have with the CATO Institute, the CPAC convention and millions of dollars being spent on TEA party candidates?  What are they up to and are they and others using your support of these "new ideas" like individual liberty, free markets and states rights to advance another agenda?

The republican party has a proud history.  Despite its struggles in the last two presidential elections now is not the time to rebrand the Libertarian Party under the GOP banner.  If Libertarians have the kind of growing support they claim then they should have no trouble succeeding as a separate party.  But that is not their goal.

While Rand is given credit in the POLITICO article for being far better at spreading his message to a more receptive audience than his father, do not forget that some Libertarians might like to use the new popularity of some old Libertarian ideas for more than Rand's style of ideological persuasion.  There might be an actual take over of the party afoot.  As POLITICO notes:

More realize that The Libertarian Party is not the vehicle to win elections. Ron Paul ran as the nominee in 1988, winning 432,000 votes or 0.47 percent of the overall vote. In 2008 and 2012, he passed on pursuing the third party’s nomination – recognizing the futility of a quixotic bid but also mindful of the damage that would be done to his son if he cost a Republican candidate the White House.

Now that they are inside the tent and trying to broaden their appeal, many libertarians put much less emphasis on purity. Most of the Paul boosters on the 168-member Republican National Committee, for instance, agreed in January to support the re-election of Chairman Reince Priebus over a less-qualified candidate who had backed Paul – a sign of maturity and a willingness to cooperate.

“The laws force us to use the political parties, but they’re totally controlled by the insiders of the two parties,” the elder Paul said with some frustration. “In many ways, they’re irrelevant compared to changing people’s minds and attitudes.”

Read that last quote again.  Party's are necessary in order to win elections, but they don't change people's minds.  In otherwords, we need the party to win elections, not change minds.

The Libertarian movement within the GOP isn't about changing minds, it's about access to money, organization, ballots and elected office.  Rand Paul is about changing minds and I'd much rather support debate within the party over policy and principles than let another rival party take over control of the GOP so they can get through that vehicle what they can't get on their own.

So, while you're thinking about Libertarians, enjoy a little humor at their expense.  I don't like Bill Maher's politics or even much of his humor, but this littly ditty might be worth a few minutes of your time. 

WARNING could be some "bad" words in this piece.