Move on, there's nothing to see here folks.

Rand Paul won the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky. Yawn!

Rand Paul is like Daddy, a social conservative who pretends to be libertarian, especially when fund raising. Some foolish libertarians want to claim Paul is a libertarian. Michael Tomasky, a writer at the left-wing Guardian newspaper, headline a column "Rand Paul, not a libertarian." Tomasky is right. This reminds of the Fox News Commentator interviewing Bob Barr, who was also pretending to be a libertarian, who had to explain to Barr what libertarianism is and how Barr wasn't one, even if the morons that infest the Libertarian Party thought he was.

Tomasky warns that Rand Paul is a libertarian when on "safe ground," issues where Tea Party conservatives would agree, "But when need be, he's a religious conservative. A perfect amalgam of what the tea party movement is. But don't look for any consistency." In other words, the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Tomasky notes Paul's positions on abortion and marriage equality, which mimic daddy's positions perfectly, or imperfectly from a libertarian viewpoint. One consistent pimp for conservatives in libertarian clothing tries to excuse Paul's view by saying he is merely against government involvement in marriage. Sure, that's the ticket. He's against state involvement in marriage right up to the moment he got his own marriage license. Both Daddy Paul and Little Paul have never had problems with marriage until gay people try to get married. While they have no such principles about straights getting married they do have them when gays marry.

Anyone who thinks that is principled ought to see me about a bridge I want to sell.

Political scientist Stephen Voss, of the University of Kentucky, described Paul fairly well: "When he's talking economics and money, he is philosophical a libertarian. When he talks social issues, he's sending guaranteeds tot he right wing that he's not libertarian."

In Rand Paul's view a woman who is raped, and becomes pregnant, must be forced by the state to carry that pregnancy to term. Even if her father rapes her she is a slave to the fetus. Even is the pregnancy may kill her she is forbidden by Big Brother from aborting. But Paul insists he wants to keep the state from intruding on people's private lives, ...except when he doesn't.

Remember that when Jerry Falwell's front group, Christian Voice, was rating the votes of congressman in view of fundamentalist morality, they gave Paul the Elder a score of 92%, almost perfect. That was after Daddy Paul voted to keep "sodomy" a criminal offense in Washington, D.C., something he excused by distorting the bill in question. Rand Paul has learned how to con libertarians almost as well as his father. But there are at least two differences, Rand Paul opposes earmarks, while Ron uses them and tries to justify them. And Rand is not good in foreign policy mattes, there his father is better.

That either of these men are better than many other candidates is a given. That doesn't say how good they are, just how bad the other choices are.

Photo: Daddy Paul and his jazz hands accompanied by his legally married wife, and son Rand Paul. accompanied by his legally married wife. Good thing they both oppose state involvement in marriage—albeit only for gay couples.

Calling all porkers, your trough is ready.

“Soo-eee, soo-eee, calling all porkers.” Yes folks, its that time again, when Congressvermin line up with their earmarks to buy favor from the locals in their districts.
And once again, conservative Ron Paul, is passing out the pork like a dyed-in-the-wool politician. Here are just a few of the projects Paul has requested using tax payer funds to finance. As far as I know none of them are within the Constitutional scope of government.

Bayside Community Hospital – $20,000,000 due for being “adversely impacted by huriccanes Rita and Ike and by the displacement of individuals by Hurricane Katrina.” Adversely impacted is a very all-emcopassing term.

TecGen - $2,800,000. As best as I understand it TecGen is a private company that produces fire protection gear. They want Texas A&M to test their gear and Ron Paul is happy to have the taxpayers, through earmarks, pay for what appears to be a subsidy to a private company. His justification is it “will also provide protective materials for law enforcement and homeland security operators” and can be used in Irag and Afghanistan. The fibre is produced in Texas and also sold on the basis that the Texas “will benefit from job creation.” Surely Paul knows that is not the case.

Revelation Missionary Baptist Church - $2,500,000. The purpose is to build a “community outreach center” for the church. Remember Paul says that separation of church and state is a fiction. But he also said that separation only applies to the federal government, not to the states. So precisely how is $2,500,000 in federal pork, for a church, not violating the separation of the federal government from the church?

Wharton County Youth Fair - $4,500,000 to build them a “new facility.” Which part of the Constitution authorizes that?

Wharton County Jr. College - $220,000 to help train students for work in the nuclear power industry. I’m pro-nuclear myself, but I’m not sure the federal government should be subsidizing the production of staff members for that field.

Trinity Episcopal School -- $1,000,000. This is put in as to help the school due repairs from hurricane damage. I should say that this church seems relatively decent and sane, from what I can see. I’m not into the god claims but these aren’t fundamentalists and bigots. Quite the contrary. But I find no mention of hurricane damage on the school’s web site. However, the church is raising money for damage to the church. Is this a fast one, where the school is being substituted for the church, because it will be easier to get funding? And while this church and school seems relatively decent, is it a constitutional function of the federal government to fund local religious institutions?

Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership - $4,000,000 to train small business on how to use “knowledge and technology from the US Space Programs to commercial use.” Sounds like a business subsidy to me, with all the defects of subsidies.

Kendleton RV Park - $1,000,000. For an RV park to “enhance tourism to retain and expand job opportunities.”

Victoria Channel – $7,000,000. “Designed to protect jobs and economic activity.” Hmm, how does that fit with Austrian economics again?

Those are a few of the sort of Pork-barrel projects that Ron Paul proposed to the budget. He really outdid himself this year. A quick tally shows his pork projects totaling almost $395,000,000. Last year he only managed to line up only $96 million for the little piggies in his district, making him the biggest spender in the Texas delegation in the House of Representatives. He clearly outdid himself this year.

The Rondroids, however, won’t see these pork projects as a bad thing, at least not when St. Ron of Paul is proposing them. These things are only bad when other Congressvermin do them. I’ve even seen comments on the Rondroid sites praising Paul “for taking care of his district.” Yep, that’s a good libertarian view, get your Congressman “to take care of you.” I guess when it comes to pork-ridden earmarks he’s Dr. Yes Please.

The District recognizes state's rights, will Ron Paul?

Ron Paul watchers, and the Rondroids themselves, ought to watch the development of one issue very carefully.

Just today the City Council for Washington, D.C., voted to recognize gay marriages that are performed in the states that allow it. That would currently be Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa—Maine seems posed to join that group any day now. Only one council member opposed the measure, that was the coke-snorting moralistic Marion Berry. Berry is also known to ignore laws (such as not paying taxes, driving without a license, etc) which he, as a city council members, helps keep in place. Laws are for the little people.

What makes this interesting for Ron Paul is that this proposal has to go to Congress for a vote. Remember that as the nation’s capitol, the District can have laws over-ridden by Congress when they so chose.

If you go back to 1981 the District revised their laws regulating sexuality. One of the main measures was that it repealed the laws making it a crime for adults of the same-sex to have sex with one another. Of course, the moment that was announced, Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority went into a tizzy fit demanding that the Republican-controlled Congress stand up for “morality” and reinstate “sodomy” as crime. Ron Paul joined in that campaign

Paul’s excuse, when questioned by libertarians. Was that the legislation reduced the District’s penalties for rape. Technically that was true but he neglected to tell the whole story. The reduction in the rape penalty came at the request of anti-rape organizations. The penalty was considered so high that jurors were reluctant to convict without absolutely overwhelming evidence. As a consequence many rapists were being found not guilty. A reduction in the penalty made it more likely that a rapist would be convicted.

When questioned by members of the Religious Right Paul didn’t need an excuse.. In fact, that year, Christian Voice, a Christianist group pushing social conservative theocracy, gave Paul a 100% perfect score, partly due to Paul’s willingness to make private sexual acts between adults a crime. It took another twelve years before the sodomy laws in the District were finally repealed without a Congressional override.


So does the city council of the District have the right to recognize legal marriages from other states? Of course, they do. The measure in question is a one-issue piece of legislation without other clauses to provide cover for a socially conservative, anti-libertarian vote.

On basic federalist principles there is no legitimate reason for Congress to step in and overturn the District’s recognition of legal marriages performed in any of the states. All the District is saying is that if a state recognizes a couple as married they will do so as well. So, will Paul allow the District to recognize the decisions of the various states or not. Or will he prefer to impose a federal restriction preventing the District from recognizing the actions of the various states?

It is hard to guess what he will do. Certainly Paul’s record has been heavily socially conservative, often downright unlibertarian. He says he recognizes the rights of the states to make their own decisions yet he has been rather inconsistent on that as well. As I see it there is no clear-cut libertarian case to override the City Council in this matter—but there wasn’t a legitimate reason for doing so in 1981 but that didn’t stop him. I don’t know what he will do, though if I had to bet, I would lay my money on him voting to overturn the measure.

A Democratic-controlled Congress is no guarantee that the measure won’t be overturned. There are plenty of socially conservative Democrats. If the measure appears to be a tight vote that situation would be especially telling in regards to Paul’s vote. In a tight vote the Religious Right, which has Paul’s heart, will be putting hard pressure to overturn the measure. That may make it impossible for Paul not to vote his heart—which is not libertarian on these matters. If the measure has no chance of winning, or if there is little pressure from groups like the National Organization for (sic) Marriage, then Paul might get away with making some federalist noises and voting no on repeal. Of course it is also possible he will take the coward’s way out and simply find an excuse not to vote at all.

Whatever happens it will be interesting to watch.