The Immune reads like a movie that keeps you guessing until the very end. It could easily be a huge blockbuster big screen thriller someday. Of course, that is if those in Hollywood are able to overlook the anti-government and decidedly libertarian message of the story. The great thing about Doc Lucky’s story is that it remains true to the liberty message without being overly preachy. In other words, this is not an Ayn Rand novel. I do love reading Ayn Rand, but this is much more mainstream and accessible. In fact it could be used as a gentle introduction to the libertarian ideology for those just starting down that path.

The book explores privacy, gun rights, civil liberties, foreign policy, government health care, global governance, and more. There’s even an evil character that I can only guess was patterned after Nancy Pelosi.

The story follows physician John Long in the not so-distant future when bio-genetically manufactured organisms that resemble flying “man-o-wars” (called airwars) begin emerging all over the world and killing humans randomly. Long is an ordinary physician who is lucky enough to be immune to the stings of the airwars. This makes him supremely useful to the propaganda machine of an international governing body that uses the airwar crisis as an excuse to continually strip individual freedoms from the world’s citizens. Hmm… doesn’t that sound all-too-familiar? And that’s not all they try to strip away as you’ll find out when you read the book.

This is truly a wonderful first novel for Doc Lucky Meisenheimer. The Immune succeeds on several levels. It is both heavy and light. It works equally as a “beach book” page-turner, and as an intellectual pursuit of individual liberty. Perhaps some of those that utilize it as the former will morph into using it as the latter by the time the last page is read.

If you are going to pursue liberty you might as well have fun doing it. That’s what reading The Immune is all about. I can’t recommend it enough. Add it to your reading list now. You’ll thank me later.

————————————–

The Immune by Doc Lucky Meisenheimer goes on sale May 13th, 2011. To order and find out more, see http://www.theimmune.com/

“I don’t think my friend should be able to kill herself,” pontificated a fellow classmate. “Because then I will be sad and this will affect me negatively.”
For whatever reason, the concept that one can do something to themselves but not others was ungraspable for many of my fellow students. Mill argued that people must have control of their own lives and be free to do whatever they wish with it as long as it does not hinder the rights of others to do whatever it is they wish with their lives. In a society that is becoming increasingly collectivist, it may be surprising to some people that victimless crimes actually exist. They include prostitution, smoking marijuana, not wearing a seat belt among others.

In his address to 2008’s Campaign for Liberty, former New Mexico Governor Gary E. Johnson joked, “When I go out on my motorcycle, I wear protection from head to toe. However, if someone doesn’t want to wear a helmet when riding their motorcycle, that should be their choice. There is a donor shortage in this country.”

The idea behind victimless crimes is simple. You have a right to your life. You have a right to make decisions, and yes even obviously stupid ones, because it is your life and yours alone. The idea that government intervenes on your behalf even with the best of intentions is a tragic and corrupting suggestion and one that should be abandoned. Only when you do something that would hinder the rights of others should the law involve itself.

The most important figure in the libertarian movement is the individual. If collectivists are allowed to control aspects related only to the individual, even in an effort to good on the part of the individual, than libertarianism has no chance at surviving and flourishing. Mr. Mill understood the benefits of individual liberty and warned in his timeless manuscript that if victimless acts are allowed to be crimes, than the individual, for all other factors of liberty, cannot be free.

During Trump’s speech there were some vocal activists shouting out Ron Paul’s name, among other things. At one point when Trump mentioned there were no good GOP candidates the shouts of Ron Paul became too much for him. The video below shows what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-0hMID67A

Yes, the out-of-touch celebrity with lots of money reacts by telling the crowd that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. I immediately said something that was later echoed by Rand Paul, “Trump has an even less of a chance of winning than Ron Paul”. That was only the beginning.

Next, Rand Paul delivered his excellent speech highlighted by the following quote, “If you refuse to acknowledge that there’s any waste in the military budget, you are a big government conservative.” Watch Rand Paul’s entire speech here.

Immediately following Rand Paul’s speech, it was time for the presentation of the Defender of the Constitution award to none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Giving Rummy this award is the equivalent of giving Ron Paul the Warmonger of the Year award. It truly boggles the mind. This was, naturally, not lost on the Ron Paul faithful still in the ballroom. Some loud boos were heard. Some shouts of “war monger” were heard. And a great number of people just stood up and walked silently out of the room in protest.

My initial take on this is that it’s OK to boo and shout from the point of introduction up to the point where the speech begins. Then the respectful thing to do would be to be silent or walk out silently. The minute you interfere with their speech you are being a thief of free speech and that’s not very libertarian is it?

However, this is Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld we are talking about. Do they deserve respect? Perhaps if they respected human liberty and actually defended the Constitution those boos today would have been cheers instead.

After dinner we attended the Liberty Forum with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jack Hunter, and Thomas Woods. It was a laid-back affair and enjoyable but was without the fiery speeches that marked last year’s Liberty Forum at CPAC when Judge Andrew Napolitano brought the house down with his great speech. I for one missed the Judge tonight.

Day 1 of CPAC was quite eventful. I’m sure tomorrow will bring more interesting moments. Ron Paul speaks in the main ballroom tomorrow afternoon and the cerebral strategists and the balls-to-the-wall activists will be there to applaud, cheer, or jeer. No matter what the media writes or other conservatives say, the goal will always be to promote liberty in the best way they as individuals see fit. And no matter the results, at least they are out here doing something for the cause of freedom.

If you’ve not heard of the Free State Project, I strongly encourage you to check it out. Now there’s even a movie about it. Libertopia is an upcoming documentary about the project and its people. From the Libertopia movie web site:

It could be your neighbor. Your boss. Your brother, sister, or perhaps a spouse. Right now thousands of Americans, passionate in the ultimate pursuit of liberty, are planning to converge in a single state…

Permanently.

Hundreds have already moved, and their plan is simple:

First, find a state with limited government, a small population, and a vibrant economy.

Second, find 20,000 freedom activists willing to move there and vow to further reduce the size of its government.

By their accounts, that state is New Hampshire. And if their project works, the “Live Free or Die” state just may become a libertarian-utopia.

Libertopia is a documentary that examines the people of the Free State Project– ordinary citizens attempting to reclaim a voice against a government which they believe shares neither their priorities nor their interests. Primarily libertarian leaning, and often considered radicals in their home towns, these people have begun a modern-day pilgrimage to the Granite State.

Here is the trailer for the documentary, set to be released on DVD in 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9wzugpHN_0

There’s also an extended trailer available.

What do you think of the Free State Project?

Be sure to pledge at ISupportRandPaul.com and donate on August 19th and August 20th (Thursday and Friday) at RandPaul2010.com.

Now the interview…

LM: With the overblown “Aqua Buddha” story spreading around the media like wildfire, it’s obvious your opponent’s attack machine is in full gear. How beneficial is it to respond to attacks of this kind? If your campaign staff find any “dirt” about Jack Conway’s past, will you respond in kind?

Rand Paul: No matter how the drive by media tries to distract from the issues in this race – the real issues facing Americans every day – we are committed to running a campaign of substance and real issues, and we will not engage in the politics of character assassination.

LM: When you become the next U.S. Senator from Kentucky what specific legislation would you introduce in your first year in office? How will that legislation benefit Kentuckians?

Rand Paul: There are a few things I want to do, for one I will propose and force a vote on an Enumerated Powers Act, to force Congress to point to the part of the Constitution that justifies their bills. That would benefit not only Kentuckians but everyone who has been affected by this out-of-control government forcing unconstitutional laws on us like Obamacare. Another will be a Balanced Budget Amendment with strict tax and spending limits.

LM: Your father has indicated that pushing through a full audit of the Fed is his top legislative priority. How high on your priority list is auditing the Fed, and what will you do to make sure it happens?

Rand Paul: Given that this incredible power is granted to a semi-private institution, one wonders why we don’t hear more about the Fed and its actions from the Congress. As Senator I would make sure that the Federal Reserve is held accountable and restore transparency to our monetary system. I fully support a true Audit of the Fed and will lead the fight for it in the Senate.

LM: Earlier this summer, former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams resigned due to the department dropping the New Black Panther Party case of voter intimidation. He called the case, “the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career.” He has since gone public, appearing on Fox News, testifying, and providing documentation to support his claims. Given his claims and supporting evidence, as a U.S. Senator, would you propose or support an official investigation into the Obama Justice Department?

Rand Paul: The Obama administration has a problem with transparency and an overreach in power, such as the EPA trying to make law on climate change. I will always support Congressional oversight over a misappropriation of executive branch power.

LM: Recently, Senator Harry Reid came out against the plan to build a mosque near the site of the September 11th attacks. Given he is in a difficult campaign race it is hard to say if his opinion is for political reasons. Are you for or against building of the mosque? Do you consider it a property rights issue and/or religious freedom issue?

Rand Paul: While this is a local matter that will be decided by the people of New York, I do not support a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero. In my opinion, the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th.

LM: Do you feel troubled Democrats Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters (just to name two of many) are perfect examples of why there should be term limits for our legislative representatives?

Rand Paul:  They are perfect examples of how long term incumbency leads to politicians who seem to care more about what is best for their career than what is best for their country. That’s why I support Term Limits, and will introduce such legislation in the Senate.

LM: In one of the early GOP primary debates in 2007 your father said the following when asked about phasing out the IRS, “…you can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be…”. Do you wish to phase out the IRS like your father and In your perfect society what role should the federal government have?

Rand Paul: The Constitution lays out specifically what the role of the federal government is supposed to be, and it is an important role, protecting our nation and protecting the rights of its citizens. But the politicians in Washington have abused their power, over-stepped their Constitutional boundaries, overtaxed, and overburdened Americans with record spending and deficits. I do support scrapping the current tax code and replacing it with something more simple and fair. The current code is over 16,000 pages and understood by absolutely no one. There was a recent article where they gave 45 tax accountants a tax return to do. They received 45 different returns. These people are paid to do this for a living, and they don’t understand it. It’s time to start over.

LM: The “money bomb” concept began during your father’s presidential campaign, and in his case, they were run exclusively by grassroots supporters. In contrast, your campaign has been rather involved in its various money bombs, including the big one on Thursday and Friday this week. Do you see any advantages or disadvantages to doing it either way?

Rand Paul: The grassroots support and enthusiasm is a major reason we have made it to where we are in the campaign. We appreciate that so much, and hope it continues. However when actions like this are organized, whether solely by grassroots, campaign, or both working together, it is always a good thing to have people on the side of liberty being active and making great things happen.

LM: Many Republicans and conservatives were very critical of Obama’s initial handling of the BP oil leak crisis. Some still are. What do you believe the president’s role should be in handling such disasters?

Rand Paul: This crisis has been a case study in failure to lead, failure to act, and using a crisis to advance your own agenda rather than solve the problem. BP should be held responsible for whatever their negligence was. They should pay for the cleanup. Congress and the Administration should examine how this happened, and what we can do to prevent this in the future. But It’s wrong for the Administration to use this crisis as a platform not for cleaning up the mess; but rather as one to threaten, bluster and seek to advance parts of their agenda.

LM: Here at Liberty Maven we are big on the 2nd Amendment and are avid shooters. In a previous interview with us you mentioned you own a gun (or guns). What gun (or guns) do you own and how often are you able to find time to get to the range and shoot?

Rand Paul: I am a very strong and vocal supporter of the 2nd amendment. I don’t think you’ll find a stronger proponent of guns running for U.S. Senate this year. I’m proud of my support from Gun Owners of America and National Association for Gun Rights. I’ve been to gun shows and shops all across Kentucky, and plan to keep doing that. I do own a gun, but don’t often get time to shoot, between the campaign, my medical practice and my family.

LM: Your recent op-ed in USA Today discussing libertarianism and conservatism where you deemed yourself “not quite” a libertarian seemed to be another (rather successful in my view) effort to unite conservatives and libertarians by focusing on where there are agreements. Is one of your fundamental campaign strategies to foster agreement between these groups?

Rand Paul: Yes, it is. The views that unite many conservatives and libertarians are grounded in deference to the Constitution and its principles, and a belief in limited government. These ideals have not been acted upon by many in Washington recently, and that’s why I’m running. It’s also why the Tea Parties exist – frustration with a lack of accountability on spending and the size of government.

These ideals – and the joining of all limited government advocates — form the basis for my campaign this year, one that has struck a chord with Republicans, independents, libertarians, and Tea Party activists. For the country’s sake I hope we can keep these groups in agreement and united against those who do not hold the same respect for those Constitutional principles.

LM: As an early endorser and supporter of your campaign our hope is that all of the people out there who are sick and tired of the Left’s outrageous and unfounded attacks on you and your character make this money bomb one of your best ever. Do you have a specific funds goal for this money bomb?

Rand Paul: Last year on August 20th – my dad’s 74th birthday – the ‘Run Rand Run’ Money Bomb raised $436,000 in 24 hours. This year, for two days on August 19th & 20th, we’re hoping to meet or exceed that goal.

I’d like to thank all of the campaign’s supporters who have been in our corner over the last year. Please continue to support us and help us send a message to Washington that we will no longer let them get away with business as usual.

————–

Don’t forget to participate in the money bomb by donating on Thursday and Friday this week. Also be sure to tune in to the I Support Rand Paul Radio Marathon on August 19th (Thursday) beginning at 9am eastern time. Guests will include Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Bruce Fein, Peter Schiff, Jake Towne, BJ Lawson, Adam Kokesh, and more. Check out all the details.

I expect he may whisper to himself considering how I ended up politically, “My god, what have I created?”

I took the golden rule and ran with it.

A few years after I learned of the golden rule, I received an inflatable boat for my birthday. We lived in a community with a beach on one of the inlets of the Chesapeake Bay. A friend and I grabbed my new boat, ran down to the beach, put it in the water, and hopped in. It was a very windy day.

The current was so strong it immediately whisked us far from shore. No matter how we paddled, the oars were of no use. So, being the fearless kids we were, we began crying our eyes out. Eventually, we were “saved” by the local fire department’s rescue boat, but only after an older kid swam out to us and began pulling us toward the shore.

During all of the commotion a large number of onlookers gathered on the rickety dock to witness the event. The rescue boat accidentally rammed the dock while bringing us to safety. The dock teetered and nearly collapsed which would have sent about 30 people into the strong currents of the water.

The headline in the local newspaper could have easily read:

Rescue boat drowns 30 while saving 2

I often think of the rather brave older kid who was in the process of saving us before the local rescue boat got involved. In appreciation for his efforts I gave him the inflatable boat I had just received for my birthday.

He would have delivered us safely to shore had the government… er uh.. rescue boat not intervened.

This traumatic event could explain a bit why I’m now a non-interventionist.

The world could find lasting peace by following the golden rule.

Practicing non-intervention would be a good start down that path.

Oh, and by the way, for the 16,000,000th time, they don’t attack us because we are free!

He already has his foot in the libertarian door thanks to his father, Ron Paul. This gives him legitimacy and support from many of his father’s more libertarian-minded supporters. Yet he softens what many Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh conservatives would call the crazy edges of his father. Ron Paul is a true red pill. There is no doubt about that.

Rand represents someone conservatives, Republicans, and even neo-conservatives can be comfortable supporting without wounding their own interventionist-minded pride. This becomes a problem for the more steadfast libertarians among the Ron Paul faithful who demand an A+ on the libertarian purity test.

This reminds me of 2004 Libertarian Presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik’s recent speech at the Libertarian Convention where he castigates libertarians for expending too much energy debating the small areas of disagreement rather than focusing that effort on areas of agreement and getting libertarians elected to office. Badnarik was criticized by some fellow Libertarians for supporting Ron Paul, a Republican, in 2008.

Yes, Rand is not Ron, and like it or not, for many people that is a good thing. Deep down inside we reality-based Ron Paul supporters all know that Ron Paul will likely never be POTUS. However, his son Rand can be the catalyst for uniting somewhat ideologically opposed groups into a true mass movement toward liberty.

For those hesitant to take the red pill, Rand Paul is offering you the purple.

Will you take it?

———–

NOTE: Set your DVRs! Watch Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch television debut this weekend. He’s hosting a “Tea Party Summit” with guests Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Dick Armey, Michelle Bachmann, and more. The show airs on the Fox Business channel at 10am and 8pm eastern on Saturday, June 12th and again at 8pm and 11pm eastern on Sunday, June 13th.

The question, as it pertains to the Civil Rights Act is, should the government make it illegal for a private business owner to discriminate or should consumers in the marketplace determine whether a private business owner stays in business due to his discriminatory practices?

Market forces, if they are truly free from regulation, produce equality far more pure than any government can create through force of law. Unfortunately, it is human nature to intervene and humans run the government so it is unlikely this assertion will ever become provable beyond doubt.

There are many people better than I am at arguing these points and defending Rand Paul on this issue.

Below are just a few of the best of the best:

First, there is John Stossel on Fox News supporting Paul saying, “I’m in total agreement with Rand Paul”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsNGSCC6aI

Here is Jacob Hornberger  speaking more truth:

Let’s delve into this two-faced liberal hypocrisy a bit further. For years, the ACLU has publicly patted itself on the back, especially in fund-raising letters, about how it heroically stood for the right of Nazi sympathizers to march down a (government-owned) street in Skokie, Illinois. This shows how principled we are, the ACLU liberals have long claimed, because we defend the right of bigots to exercise freedom of speech, especially when the speech is abhorrent or offensive.

Would liberals accuse the ACLU of being racists and anti-Semitic bigots for defending the right of Nazi sympathizers to express their views? Of course not. Liberals would praise the ACLU for having the courage of its convictions for standing up for the free-speech rights of those who express horrendously offensive views.

Then, why not the same consideration for libertarians who stand up for the right of business owners to run their businesses the way they want, even if in the process they discriminate against Jews, Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, or anyone else?

Like I say, two-faced and hypocritical.

Here’s J.E. Dyer from HotAir.com defending the “impious Rand Paul”:

Federal overreach in a good cause is still federal overreach.  Republicans must reflect on this fact:  that if we refuse to reexamine the loose thinking about federal authority in the Civil Rights Act – thinking that was strongly opposed by many at the time, as older readers will remember – then we have already ceded the principle of federal overreach, and, by our own agreement, there is nothing the US federal government can’t do to us.

Here is Tom Woods on “Rand Paul and the Zombies”:

The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly wants to repeal it, they say, which means we’d have segregated restaurants all over again. Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed. And certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters have decided the matter is closed.

Here is the always excellent Jack Hunter on the “Rand Paul Revolution”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEM50EkAyx4

And finally listening to (at least) the first 20-30 minutes of the Jason Lewis show from May 20th will really sum the situation up quite well.

My own thoughts on the matter can be summed up via two items I posted to the @LibertyMaven twitter account:

Hands up if you think Rand Paul is racist… Now, hands up if you think unicorns exist. Hmm, all the same people.

Rand Paul’s detractors’ affinity for the race card is nearly as high as it is for spending other people’s money.

And with that it is time to move on from this Rand Paul “event” and look toward our continued fight for liberty in America.

My only regret is that Paul didn’t say to Matthews:

“Chris, you know I always get this tingling feeling down my leg when I think about freedom.”

Check out the nearly 10 minute interview below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdJ9oQzjgo

Let’s dig a little deeper and attempt to un-attack Ron Paul. Here is my collection.

The “guilt by association” attack:

This is probably the most commonly-used attack on Ron Paul. Paul was criticized for “accepting” a $500 donation during his campaign from a white supremacist.  Of course, the Paul campaign didn’t find out about the donor until it came to light after the donation was made. He refused to return the donation. Instead he argued that it would be better to spend the money wisely in the name of freedom for all rather than returning $500 to a known white supremacist. Some see this as a cop-out. It could also be argued that it was Paul upholding freedom of speech found in the First Amendment. Yes, unfortunately for some, the First Amendment does protect all speech, not just agreeable speech.

People choose to support any given candidate for all kinds of odd reasons. It’s quite common for people to vote for the most likable candidate regardless of the candidate’s political views. I can’t fathom this reasoning (or lack thereof). There are probably some really “scum of the earth” type of people who voted for and supported Barack Obama and John McCain. The reality is that candidates cannot choose their supporters; therefore, they should not be condemned through them.

The “blame America” attack:

This attack on Ron Paul is quite common among neo-conservatives. Their misguided logic goes like this: Ron Paul claims that our government’s foreign policy of the last 50 (or so) years has bred hatred of America in the Middle East. This means Ron Paul blames “America” for atrocities like the 9/11 attacks.

To make this argument one must equate the U.S. government with the American people. When one uses the word “America” it encompasses the government and the citizens. Ron Paul blames U.S foreign policy, not the citizens. United States foreign policy does not equal “America”; therefore, Ron Paul does not blame “America” for anything.

In fact, it could easily be said that Ron Paul is celebrating “America”. He is demonstrating through his words and actions America’s founding principles: distrust and criticism of an over-reaching government.

Arguing that Ron Paul “blames America” is the equivalent of arguing that Thomas Jefferson was a traitor for authoring the Declaration of Independence.

The “isolationist” attack:

This one is so common and yet so misunderstood that it makes my eyes bleed every time I read it or hear it. Luckily it is easy to understand why it isn’t true.

To be an isolationist one must hold two beliefs with respect to foreign policy and trade. First, one must adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy. This is the foreign policy of our Founders and Ron Paul certainly is “guilty” on this one. Second, one must be a protectionist on trade. Protectionism is the antithesis of “free trade”. Ron Paul is a free trader, not a protectionist; therefore, Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

He is, however, a staunch non-interventionist, like our Founding Fathers.

The “racist” attack:

This attack refers to some questionable writing within Ron Paul’s newsletter released in the early 90′s (for the most part). It’s impossible to know what is in someone’s heart, but Paul tends to wear his heart on his sleeve. To call someone a racist who lists Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as heroes seems to say more about the accuser than the accused. He has denied writing the words in those newsletters. Add that to the fact that Paul continuously condemns racism and no other racist remarks attributed to Paul have come to light during his nearly 40 year political career; therefore, it is highly unlikely that Ron Paul is racist.

The “anti-semite” attack:

The “anti-semite” attack appears to stem largely from Paul’s desire to end foreign aid to Israel. The truth is that Paul wants to end all foreign aid, not just to Israel, not just to the many Arab countries that also get U.S. aid, but to all countries. Additionally, Paul’s entire economic belief system is based upon the work of Jewish economists and thinkers; therefore, it is highly unlikely that Ron Paul is an anti-semite.

The “earmark” attack:

Paul has been criticized for putting in earmarks for his constituents in his home district in Texas. What most people don’t realize is that the practice of earmarking is a method to allocate tax money that has already been collected. Refraining from putting in earmarks does not decrease spending at all. In fact, by not putting in earmarks, the President gets the money and can then spend it how he sees fit rather than as Congress sees fit. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

The practice of putting in earmarks actually makes government spending more transparent rather than less. Earmarks account for less than 1% of the budget. Being principled on earmarks is bluster without wind.

While Ron Paul puts them in so his constituents have the opportunity to get some of their tax money back, he votes against them; therefore, Ron Paul should be commended rather than criticized for his position on earmarks.

The “can’t win” attack:

Many are critical of Paul because they feel he is “damaged goods” and doesn’t have a chance at winning should he be the Republican Party’s nominee. Many of these same people donated and cheered another “can’t win” candidate to victory in Massachusetts earlier this year.

It is unlikely that Ron Paul would win, but that doesn’t mean he can’t win. If enough people soul-search toward being free from government rather than being creatures of government, Ron Paul could be the next President of the United States.

I doubt that support could ever come from the ever-dwindling group of neo-conservative Republicans, but that support could certainly come from those on the Left who are now realizing that Obama is potentially worse than Bush on foreign policy.

The “libertarian” attack:

This attack seems to come from both the Left and the Right. The Right attempts to argue that since Paul calls himself a libertarian it means he is a libertine. They argue that he is pro-choice. He’s pro-life. They argue that he would legalize all drugs. He would return that authority to the states, where it belongs, according to the Constitution.

The Left argues that Paul’s free-market approach would leave too many without the basic necessities of life. In fact, if the government were to get out of the welfare business and stop taxing income, Americans would respond with private charity to cover many of the poor that have become dependent on government for their survival. America is the most charitable country in the world even with the tax burden. Imagine what it could be like without that burden.

Yes Ron Paul is a libertarian. So were the Founders. It is a badge of honor, not shame.

The “truther” attack:

Yes, some people actually still believe Ron Paul is a 9/11 “truther”. He is not and stated so during an appearance on Glenn Beck’s TV show during his campaign of 2008. He called some of the truther’s claims “preposterous”. No more words are needed; just watch this clip.

The “gold standard” attack:

Many people say Ron Paul wants to return to a “gold standard”. This is a misunderstanding that Paul himself does not usually get a chance to clarify during short interviews. When it comes to monetary policy Paul supports legalizing the Constitution where it states that only gold and silver can be legal tender. He advocates repealing the legal tender laws. He supports competing currencies, not necessarily a gold standard in the historical sense.

Paul believes that legalizing currencies other than the fiat dollar would utilize market forces to convert the monetary system toward a currency that would be backed by something tangible. That could be gold, silver, or whatever the market determines is best.

It’s easy to just flippantly say, “oh he’s for the gold standard”, and then follow it up with an equally flippant, “that’s just crazy and we already proved that couldn’t work.” The truth is in the details. Competing currencies could possibly bring about a de-facto gold standard, but this wouldn’t be your great-grandfather’s gold standard.

The point is to bring freedom to the monetary system, not institute some kind of regulated currency ready-made for manipulation by special interests. We already have that now.

The “end the Fed” attack:

This attack, like many others, preys on fear. The attack suggests that Paul would like to abolish the Federal Reserve the minute he takes office. Paul has stated numerous times that legalizing competing currencies (see the “gold standard” attack above) would gradually and naturally siphon power away from the Federal Reserve.

This power reduction would occur because people would likely demand the use of the hard currency instead of the fiat currency being peddled by the Fed. Another indication of this gradual approach is Paul’s bill to require a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

Sure, he’d like to just abolish the Federal Reserve, but he realizes that would be too drastic a measure for markets to remain stable if it were done too quickly.

The  “mother’s basement” attack:

This attack seems to come from envy or jealousy rather than sound reasoning. It goes something like this:

“All those Ron Paul supporters do is spam Internet polls while living in their mother’s basements!”

In fact, a Google search on “ron paul mother’s basement” yields about 62,000 results.

I’m living proof that this attack is untrue. I don’t live in my mother’s basement. My parents don’t even have a basement. In fact there is not a single Ron Paul supporter I know who lives in a basement. We own our own homes, have jobs, families, and many of us have children. We just want the government to go away and/or leave us alone.

It could more easily be argued that those who do not support the freedom found in Ron Paul’s message are living in their government’s basement.

This concludes the guided tour through my collection of Ron Paul attacks. This article may not prevent attacks on Ron Paul from the misguided and ill-informed, but hopefully it illustrates just how misguided and ill-informed the attacks are.

Liberty is not easy. Sometimes you do have to dig a little deeper to find it.

—————————————

Feel free to add your own un-attacks in the comments.

]]> http://libertymaven.com/2010/04/14/un-attacking-ron-paul/9416/feed/ 17 http://libertymaven.com/2010/04/09/ron-paul-w-jesse-ventura-on-cnns-libertarian-larry-king-live/9486/ http://libertymaven.com/2010/04/09/ron-paul-w-jesse-ventura-on-cnns-libertarian-larry-king-live/9486/#comments Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:35:41 +0000 Marc Gallagher http://libertymaven.com/?p=9486 Someone at CNN is going to get fired. Jesse Ventura was the guest host of Larry King Live earlier tonight. He had Ron Paul on the show along with some others for the entire hour. They discussed several issues of the day including the retirement of Justice Stevens, Bart Stupak, and the general state of America today.

Paul suggested Judge Andrew Napolitano as a potential replacement for Justice Stevens. He then uses his ample time to discuss the future direction of America should be toward libertarianism. He argues that libertarian ideas can bring together the Progressives and the Constitutional Conservatives. It was quite an interesting discussion. Check it out below. The video is in 5 parts.

httpvp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=20F79F4A3CE456BC

Unfortunately, such times also bring out the crazy and confused too. Recently, we have read about shootings at the Smithsonian and Pentagon in DC. A man flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin, TX. A militia group was arrested for plotting the killing of police officers in an attempt to cause an uprising against the U.S. government.

While some attempt to accuse and reveal loose associations between these lunatics and those of use who truly do believe in liberty, we know the truth. They never were and never will be libertarians. They acted, not in self-defense, but on their own twisted apocalyptic emotions.

Moderation should be the watchword when it comes preparation for a future darker than the past. Working on obtaining the three G’s is a good step in that direction.

Guns – Guns are the great equalizer when it comes to defending yourself and your loved ones. I once feared guns. Now, guns are a part of my everyday life. Naturally, owning a gun isn’t enough. You also need to own ammunition for your gun. This was a problem last summer when the demand for ammunition skyrocketed following the election of gun-grabber Barack Obama.

As the demand went up supplies were severely limited and prices went up significantly as well. As I grew weary combing through all the big online ammo retailers for available ammunition at reasonable prices I came up with an idea.

Wouldn’t it be neat if there were a search engine specifically designed for ammunition shopping? I brought the idea to my friend and Liberty Maven colleague, Mike Miller, and a few months later we had an incredibly useful tool to help people find ammo for sale at multiple online retailers at once. You can search by caliber, grains, manufacturer, keyword, and sort it by cost per round. We call it AmmoSeek.com. Check it out and send us some feedback on the site.

Following the rise in ammo prices caused by the increasing demand for ammunition reveals to us the importance of the second ‘G’.

Gold – To put it simply, gold is money. Its value has never gone to zero. It is an insurance policy against inflation. It’s also very important to realize what it is not. It is not an investment. It’s not something to be traded like a stock. It is something you purchase, take ownership of, and store somewhere safe, just in case the future ends up being darker than the past.

With the Federal Reserve intent on printing obscene amounts of paper “money” it is hardly a stretch to believe that in the not too distant future every paper dollar you own will be worth less (perhaps much less) than it is worth today. Gold is a store of value. Trading in your paper money for gold and/or silver is a wise move no matter the price. Remember, you aren’t investing, you are purchasing an insurance policy when you buy precious metals.

I (and many many others) purchase our gold and silver from APMEX. They have great customer service and have excellent prices.

Gardens – Man (or woman) cannot live by precious metals and firepower alone. We need to eat and Au and Pb aren’t very appetizing nor all that healthy for longevity. This is where cultivating a vegetable garden becomes essential.

Making a self-sustaining garden can be done by seed-saving. Your harvest each year includes more than eating the delicious fruit and vegetables from your garden. You also harvest the seeds and save them properly for next year’s planting. We purchase our seeds and get our knowledge of seed-saving from Southern Exposure Seed Exchange. They have excellent customer service and their catalog is probably one of the most informative of any seed supplier.

Even if the dark future never materializes there is little doubt that your life will be more complete for having pursued the three G’s – guns, gold and gardens.