Rand Paul? Puke.
http://nyyrc.com/blog/2013/08/ron-rand-and-the-mises-institute/

The hard-to-explain affiliations continue for Ron and Rand. Ron Paul has been photographed with Don Black, a Grand Wizard for the KKK and founder of white supremacist website, Stormfront. A prosecutor even tried to subpoena Ron for his alleged involvement in a planned neo-Nazi coup on the island of Dominica. Neo-Nazi groups today are less about racism than narcotics profits; they even work alongside historically black gangs, like the Bloods and Crips. Sound strange? Consider that George Lincoln Rockwell and his “white supremacist” American Nazi Party worked with the Black Muslims, a black separatist group. (The Black Muslims also worked with the Ku Klux Klan, known for their complicity in the drug trade and cooperation with neo-Nazi groups.) Wonder what they were doing. Rockwell is quoted as saying, “They want a chunk of American and I prefer that they go to Africa.” A simple spat over territorial dominance?

Rand Paul was recently embarrassed when it was revealed that one of his staff is a neo-Confederate. Jack Hunter, aka the Southern Avenger (no, this is not a joke), was let go by the Rand following exposure. It is incredible to think that Rand did not know about Hunter’s politics. Clearly Rand had no problem hiring a pro-secessionist radio host and author with a history of anti-minority statements. Maybe Jack really is a racist… or maybe he’s just another useful idiot.

One thing narcotics organizations really need is a way to wash money. Without paying taxes, they can’t enter the legitimate economy. There are lots of ways to do laundry, including nail shops, financial product chicanery, padding expenses, and, yes, even owning laundromats. Another way is to set up an organization and accept donations. A political campaign works just fine for that purpose. And what better way to clean up than an online fundraiser… say, a money bomb?

The Mises Institute, like Ron and Rand, has a powerful distaste for all American activity abroad. This goes so far as to suggest that America should not have gone to war in 1941. Ralph Raico has written extensively on the topic. As is typical for so-called “non-interventionists,” war is always America’s fault, and we’d be better to butt out. This recalls Ron Paul’s defense of Osama bin Laden’s demands in the 2007 Republican Presidential debate.

Why has Barack Obama’s popularity come crashing down? In a recent Gallup poll, the President’s approval rating hit a record low — below anything that either George W. Bush or his father experienced. The only President in modern times to get a lower rating was Richard Nixon, shortly before he resigned.

Why such abysmal ratings? Do you think it might have anything to do with the far-left policies Obama has pursued? His disastrous healthcare program? The National Security Agency spying scandal? Or maybe the use of the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate conservatives?

No, according to the man himself, none of those are the reason why his approval ratings have plummeted. When asked by New Yorker editor David Remnick to explain his dismal approval, Obama reached into his bag of tricks and played the race card again:

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said.

Well, sure, in a country of more than 300 million people, no doubt there are some people who are prejudiced. Just ask any Muslim you know. But the truth is Obama’s color isn’t the reason his popularity has plummeted. On the contrary, it’s the reason he was elected President in the first place, to which Obama alluded in the New Yorker article:

“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.”

Think about it. What if Obama had been white? Do you think there’s any chance that an obscure white politician from Illinois who hadn’t even completed a single, undistinguished term in the Senate would have been elected President? Heck, if Obama had been white, do you really believe he would have defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination?

Not a chance.

If Obama had been white, do you believe the media would have ignored his very dubious associations or his lack of any real accomplishments as a U.S. Senator, an Illinois State Senator or a community organizer? Do you he would have been given a pass on such mysteries as the grades he got in college or why he can’t produce an authentic birth certificate?

No, Obama’s skin color has nothing to do with his plunging popularity. On the contrary, Obama was elected President in 2008 precisely because he was black, not in spite of it. He won because there was a vast reservoir of good will in this country toward him from whites who genuinely wanted him to succeed.

Had they known what he actually believed and the kind of far-left policies he would try to implement, there’s not a chance he would have been elected. It was precisely because he was able to hide his Marxist associations and his far-left agenda that he is sitting in the White House today.

Despite the fact that a majority of Americans say he’s taking the country in the wrong direction, Obama says he is more determined than ever to implement his radical agenda. And if he can’t get Congress to pass the legislation he wants, then he’ll do it without their approval.

He said so himself. As he convened his first cabinet meeting of the new year, Obama said: “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

He then rattled off a long list of issues that he says Federal bureaucrats will begin implementing, regardless of what Congress does.

For a man who once taught Constitutional law, Obama sure doesn’t think much of the system our Founding Fathers created. Forget about checks and balances between three branches of government. Creating the laws under which we must live is supposed to be the responsibility of the legislative branch, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Obama’s job, as the head of the executive branch, is to implement the laws Congress passes.

Of course, Obama knows that is how the system is supposed to work. He just doesn’t like it. He doesn’t want to be bound down by the chains of a Constitution.

And he isn’t. Last year, for every law that Congress approved, the executive branch created hundreds of new rules and regulations. In 2013, the Federal Register, where such new dictates must be published, was more than 80,000 pages long.

Obama is sounding more like the dictator of a banana republic than the President of the American republic. He and his staff have repeatedly changed the rules for Obamacare in an effort to keep the program from totally collapsing. The Environmental Protection Agency is doing the same to destroy the coal industry in this country, as well as to implement the Administration’s agenda on “climate change.” (Remember, we’re no longer calling this trumped-up crisis “global warming.” In the wake of the winter storms that have been paralyzing much of the country, the environmental extremists needed a phrase that didn’t make them look totally ridiculous.)

Disturbing as his comments may have been, Obama hasn’t gone as far as Andrew Cuomo. During a radio interview last week, the New York Governor actually wondered out loud if conservatives should even be allowed to live in the State.

Here’s what he said: “Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Be sure to note how Cuomo twists things to portray honest conservatives as extremists. If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that somehow makes you an anti-gay extremist. If you support the right to “keep and bear arms,” as the 2nd Amendment promises, then you must be a “pro-assault weapon” extremist.

If other words, if you disagree with the liberal agenda, you are an extremist. And not only does the Governor of New York want to exclude you from the political debate, but he doesn’t even want you to live in his State.

The bad news is that the left is getting even more open and arrogant about their intentions.

The good news is that more and more Americans don’t like it. A majority of our fellow countrymen now agree that the country is heading in the wrong direction.

How do we turn it in the right one? One way is to nominate, and then elect, politicians who will stick to their principles after they are elected. Pay attention to what they say now. And even more important, hold their feet to the fire once they get to Washington.

Nobody said it would be easy defending our liberties. But somebody’s got to do it. So it better be us.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

http://personalliberty.com/2014/01/24/conservative-you-must-be-racist-extremist/

You are really off. Apparently you do not know anything about these people because you don't life in Texas. We do. And what Ron is afraid of is that his Libertarian views will hurt his sons chances, nothing could be further from the truth. He does tend to hint of some Libertarian aspects but when his father ran for President, he was the only one our their predicting what would happen in 2008 & 9. And the printing of worthless money on printing presses, which no one knew of at the time and that we could not do that indefinitely, which the government seems to have a different idea of that. By the way, in case you haven't heard by now, Rand Paul walked away with the CPAC straw Poll for the second time in two years.This time is was a standing room only ovation with many young kids who voted for Obama last two times and found out when they got their paychecks about all that hope and change was only for Hussein and Michelle and not for the working stiff. Wouldn't it be so cool for Rand to be President and Cruz to be the head of the Justice Department. they will definitely go after some dogs and they said so. either Obamacare will be repealed when we get in office, or it will be repealed by votes of the Democrats who are losing their seats at home from angry voters! Either way, once we get in, and we will, there are going to be a lot of criminal proceedings going on. Life Love from the great Republic of Texas!

ibKelly and Tasine-- Colombia is the correct way to spell the fine country my wife is from, which is different from the way universities and companies mispell the name in the United States.
And whoever used the term "half-rican American", that might be a humorous linguistically, but the politically correct and those who are running the show in Washington jump on stuff like that as an opportunity to dismiss valid complaints about obama's unconstitutional, criminal, and/or socialistic 'presidency'.
Keep in mind that my criticism is petty as can be when compared to the negativity I have to say about people like one of my siblings who actually voted for him not just once, but twice. People like him are really starting to make me question democracy and think it would be much better titled if it were called democrazy.

Why do we need political correctness? I am just a writer, but this is how I see it. And I am starting to hate that word:"folks." Political correctness can be seen as an attempt to enforce a doctrine of equality upon a culture that has trouble giving up outmoded notions of acceptable behavior. It is a doctrine that requires its adherents to acknowledge that certain cultural values are absolute, regardless of time or place. In a sense, political correctness is a refutation of the relativism of the 60's and 70's. The old catch phrase,"different strokes for different folks" is not acceptable to the politically correct. Now everyone must be treated with the same strokes--and the strokes must be approved by...whom? By the politically correct, who presume their way to be the correct way. The only acceptable way. While its end--equality of treatment for everybody--may sound noble, the problem with politically correctness is that it can too easily become a kind of neo-Puritanism, "correcting" the behavior of everyone according to a model approved by only a few who believe that what is proper for them must be proper for everyone. The politically correct believe in freedom of thought, but only as long as your thought conforms with theirs. The politically correct preach toleration, but only of the same things they themselves find acceptable. Ironically, in the name of open-mindedness, the minds of the politically correct have become closed. A real searcher
for the truth would listen carefully and evaluate a position that contradicts theirs instead of automatically condemning it because it is outside the realm of acceptability. While writing this, I have been thinking in the back of my mind that I always had to be an excellent researcher, a fine writer of historical papers, and a successful student in each of my college classes, not just those taught in the history department. Beyond that, however, I would like to be as unbiased and impartial as possible when I examine historical topics. I have developed a passion for history, but I also hope that I will not let that passion about a subject keep me from a dispassionate assessment. I think for myself, not to please instructors. I hope I will be a follower of truth rather than a follower of fads. That should be the goal of academia itself--not to propagate arrogant viewpoints and not to replace one dogma with another equally rigid. Read, research, consider, and write. And I hope to enjoy the work I come up with. I am writing this because I have begun research on a book that, as the textbooks would have you believe something other happened, to tell what really happened. When I taught, every other year we had to tour the cafeteria which was set up with different books we could choose from to serve as our student's school textbooks for that and the next year. I was struck, actually since I was in High School, how when you know a thing happened one way, the truth of the matter is erased and what the government wants you to think happened is taught instead. It was one of the major reasons I quit teaching. When Eisenhower walked into those concentration camps which were discovered by the allies during WWII, one of the first thing he told his attache was to get as many cameras and have as many of the men as there are cameras and start taking pictures. Then, when the people of the town said that they had had no idea what had been going on inside of the gates of the camps, even though Eisenhower asked them what they thought they were burning 24/7 with the stench of human bodies and the smoke covering the sky with the soot? When they still would deny, Eisenhower knew that was exactly how history would remember the most horrific mass killing in mankind's history so he had the townspeople marched into the camps and made them start piling the dead bodies upon other dead bodies. There have been many groups espousing through the years that would have you believe that the Holocaust never happened,never mind the eye witnesses, or the German Commanders who admitted it at Nuremberg, but said they were "only following orders." But because of Eisenhower's keen sense of history, he knew that if it were not verified as accurately as possible, it would be denied that it ever took place and history would, as it usually tends to do, repeats itself. This is the way I feel when I read a school history textbook and read about the Civil War. There are so many untruths and outright lies that I have working on a rough manuscript of my own. The government does not want students to know the real reason behind the Civil War--State's Rights with the issue of slavery being the excuse. I have many photos of black infantrymen with their rifles and muskets at the ready. I sincerely doubt that any Commander would issue weapons to a group whom he thought for one moment may kill him and his other men with those very same weapons. I also have old photographs of Mexican soldiers and Native Indian soldiers. They all fought for one thing: to keep their Southern ground. Only an ignorant fool would tell you that the Confederate flag is a flag of hatred. It was a sacred flag of the pride of the people of the South and has nothing whatsoever to do with slavery. In fact the two are so far apart as to have absolutely no meaning in the same sentence. So, as I continue my research, I want to know if it was the textbooks the students had to study and the half-truths that were written within those pages, or the person's sincere believe that the Confederate flag was a flag only about one thing--slavery. Almost none of the soldiers even owned slaves. They were fighting to keep the Northerners from coming down into their states and trying to tell them how and what to do. We have the same issue today. We have Washington bureaucrats coming into my state and trying to tell us how to do things. We have a balanced budget, hell we have a budget and not just a bunch of printing presses and cooked books. Washington could learn a few things from us. I have absolutely no idea when I will have my manuscript ready to publish, but when I do, there will be no lies. Just the heartfelt love I feel for my Southern home. And I will be dedicating it to all the young men who were brothers,fathers, husbands and sons who died out in the cold. The reason? Does any war ever really have a reason? P. Kathy Kleiman, The Editing Chair: An Established Research Company Live Love from the great Republic of Texas!