Too Kooky for the Constitution?

I came across an interesting website the other day: www.tookookyforkentucky.com. It is a site dedicated to demeaning Ron and Rand Paul for their liberty-leaning political views, and as the website’s name conveys, suggests that the Pauls are extremists and a couple of crazies whose ideas should not be welcomed in Kentucky. It even portrays the Pauls in “dunce” caps (because liberty is a stupid idea of course). Although I do not normally like to give attention to shoddy publications which malign good people, this website is much more than an anti-Ron/Rand Paul site — it is indicative of what is wrong with the Republican Party in general; and, sad to say, with mainstream Republicans, like the site’s author.

The site is run by the chairman of the Breathitt County Republican Party, who, as can be seen from the site, is more concerned with falling in line with the Republican Party hierarchy than promoting the time-tested principles of liberty which are embodied in our Constitution. No, the chairman makes no claim that his views are those of his county or any other Republican party, but one only need have interacted with a mainstream Republican or two in the last few years to know that the author is only reiterating what the wise men in the upper echelons of the party have been saying for years.

The site comes as no surprise as it is an obvious attempt to slow down Rand Paul’s unexpected successful efforts in campaigning for Kentucky’s available U.S. Senate seat. The site’s kooky drivel can be added to what has happened in Northern California, Southern California, and Florida as just another of the many examples of the Republican Party’s disdain for the classical liberal viewpoint, especially if that viewpoint is held by Ron Paul supporters.

Let’s look at some of the good chairman’s reasons why the Pauls are “kooky.” Although there are numerous postings, I have chosen only three which contain subject matter repeated throughout the posts.

“Like Obama and Kerry-Rand Paul Speaks Against Patriot Act“

First off, I must say that the site’s author is a wizard with the English language. Just look at the heading: “Like Obama and Kerry… ” Yes Kentucky Republicans, a vote for Rand Paul is the equivalent of voting for Obama. And you know what? Just like Stalin, Rand Paul drinks water. The heading is an insult to my intelligence. Nonetheless, the heading also portrays the Republican Party’s view (and the Democrats’ view for that matter) that suppressing our civil liberties in response to “terrorist” threats by way of the [Anti]Patriot Act is a necessary sacrifice to preserve freedom. Has the world, or at least the two parties, gone insane?

I wonder if the site’s author actually watched and listened to what Rand Paul said in the video posted. Rand describes how the [Anti]Patriot Act allows law enforcement to secretly “search your house without presenting the warrant [be]cause there is no warrant” and they can “place wire listening devices in your house and never let you know… That is wrong and is something that we will always know is wrong.” Does the Republican Party really disagree with this statement? Apparently.

With the [Anti]Patriot Act the Republicans have turned their backs on the Spirit of 1776. The American Revolution was jump-started by opposition to writs of assistance (general search warrants that did not expire) which were used by the king’s customs officials to deter smuggling. The lawyer James Otis (a non-anti-patriot) argued against these writs as contrary to an Englishman’s natural rights. Such writs, like “security letters” (general warrants) issued under the [Anti]Patriot Act, were “necessary” to protect the colonists against smuggling, a serious crime in English America. But the American colonists understood that the right to be protected in one’s “persons, houses, papers, and effects” was what was really necessary, and any infringement on that right must be severely limited in time, specific in nature, and supported by evidence. Indeed, the search and seizure issue was so imperative to the anti-federalists that they demanded that the newly created U.S. Constitution include an amendment to prohibit illegal searches and seizures and to require a warrant issued only if under oath or affirmation.

The Republicans’ passing of the [Anti]Patriot Act tells me that the Fourth Amendment is too kooky for the Republican party.

“Ron and Rand Paul-”We’re The Only Anti-War Republicans”

The website gives no commentary on this posting and simply provides a video of Rand Paul during the 2008 presidential campaign in which he states that Ron Paul is the only anti-war Republican presidential candidate. I can only assume, therefore, that the author meant to convey one of two things, either “Nuh-uh, there are other anti-war Republicans” or “The Pauls are crazy because they are anti-war.” I will err on the side of assuming that the author intended to communicate the latter, which is supported by how gung ho the Republicans (okay, the Democrats too) have been over the last decade for bombing and occupying countries half way around the world.

So… I guess the author is saying he is pro-war, which I have found to be the case with most mainstream Republicans, although they would never characterize themselves as such. Instead they would likely say that they only support wars that are in our national interest or that will prevent “them” from attacking us first, i.e., pro-war. After all, it is better that we take the war to them than to have the war brought to us. (Rolling eyes.)

If the Republican Party is not pro-war, I would love to hear justification for the Republicans’ continued beating of the war drums for a war that was unconstitutional, based on lies, and had nothing to do with terrorism; an undeclared land war in Asia, the original objective of which was never met and the current objective of which no one really knows; and, the soon-to-be war on another country which has a really bad leader (as bad as or worse than Saddam for heaven’s sake!) and has (maybe), or is at least trying to get, weapons of mass destruction (déjà vu?). However you justify it, Republicans (and Democrats), you are pro-war. The past 100 years of non-stop war can lead to no other conclusion.

To be pro-war simply does not register with my synapses (especially for a political party in which a great majority of its members profess to follow someone known as the Prince of Peace). How can a human being be pro-war? In war people are killed and property is destroyed. Nothing else should need to be said to understand why war is bad.

To set the record straight, a liberty lover is anti-aggressive war. Liberty lovers will only go to war to defend their rights from the infringement of others. America’s Revolutionary War is an excellent example of such a war, but today’s wars do not fall under the defensive war category.

If the Republican Party wishes to avoid the “Woe unto you… hypocrites” admonition declared by the Prince of Peace and at the same time stay true to its own party platform of being the party of limited government and individual liberty, it must become the anti-war party, because war is big government and anti-individual liberty.

Furthermore, Republicans must demand that the federal government follow the Constitution by never committing an act of war without a Congressional declaration of war. Forcing the federal government to obey the supreme law of the land would be an excellent step in limiting government.

The Republicans’ position on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran leads me to conclude that peace is too kooky for the Republican Party as well.

“Ron Paul Wants to Legalize Pot, End War on Drugs: Does Rand?”

I believe the correct term is “decriminalize” not “legalize.” “Legalizing” pot would mean that the government would affirmatively act to put pot on a list of goods that people can buy — a pot license, if you will. “Decriminalizing” pot would mean that the government would repeal the laws making it illegal and get out of the way of the production, distribution, and purchasing of pot. Liberty lovers advocate the latter.

Dr. Paul explained the liberty position of the drug war on Real Time with Bill Maher a few months ago. You can read about it and watch it here. With regards to the drug war, a liberty lover “believes in freedom of choice in all that we do, as long as the individual never hurts anybody else.” In other words, liberty lovers believe in…liberty. The drug war is the antithesis of liberty, but Republicans hold the drug war near and dear to their hearts and demonize those who advocate abolishing the drug war as degenerates and heathens. How supporting liberty can be so offensive to some people is beyond me.

The drug war has acted as a catalyst for government to intervene in private lives and violate the individual’s natural rights in the very ways that our Constitution sought to prevent. It has enabled the federal government to improperly regulate the right to bear arms, it has allowed for the passing of statutes making the grounds for conducting searches and seizures more lenient, it has restricted legitimate economic activity, it has led to the imprisonment of hundred of thousands of people for crimes in which no one’s rights were violated, and it has contributed to the growth of the state into the behemoth it is today.

The Republican party must renounce the drug war if it truly believes in limited government and individual liberty. Until then, it is only too clear that the right to liberty is too kooky for the Republican Party.

Conclusion

The Republican Party is dealing with a bout of schizophrenia or hypocrisy. On the one hand it holds itself out as the party of limited government that fights for the individual’s rights against an over intrusive government, but in practice it does exactly the opposite.

Although the author of the Too Kooky for Kentucky website is only the chairman of a county Republican party and cannot speak for any other county, state, or national Republican party, everyone who knows a mainstream Republican can vouch for the fact that the author’s views as presented on the website are shared generally by Average Joe Republican. It is unfortunate, because if the kooky website shows us anything, it is that the Republican Party has become too kooky for the Constitution.

Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty / Originally published here