That “healthy libertarian streak” she mentions is really the freedom aspect….

…. the aspect no-one in politics really want to talk about.

Less freedom < 0 ——————— 10 ——————— 20 > More Freedom

Communism < 0 ————  Democracy   ———— 20 > Anarchy

About these ads
This entry was posted in A New America, Communist, Cultural Marxism, Day By Day Trayvon Lies - The Story, Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, Fabian Socialists - Modern Progressives, media bias, Police action, Sarah Palin, Socialist, States, Statism, Tea Party, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to That “healthy libertarian streak” she mentions is really the freedom aspect….

  1. 22tula says:

    I don’t know why Sarah Palin & Mark Levin support this guy.
    You think Obama is arrogant? Wait. You’ve seen nothing yet if he gets the power.

    “Former Aide’s Comments Continue to Haunt Rand Paul”
    By Alana Goodman – August 7, 2013

    “Rand Paul’s 2010 thuggery tour continues – bullies 85 year old lady”
    April 4, 2010

    Rand Paul & Adam Kokesh
    Comments – Bigger Fish To Fry – You Betcha ;-)

    • canadacan says:

      Ron Paul is pretty arrogant , perhaps it runs in the family.
      This reminds me of a comment made about General Douglas MacArthur. someone who knew his father made the observation that he thought his father was the most arrogant man he had ever met. until he met the son.
      Rand Paul is brilliant and has some great ideas but yeah he’s a primadonna.

    • michellc says:

      I think they support him because honestly there aren’t many in Washington willing to stand up for the constitution. You pretty much have Cruz, Paul and Lee are pretty much it that get any recognition anyway. There are a few congressmen but they don’t get any press.
      So we’re all kind of stuck with supporting those who at least try to fight for the constitution.
      I don’t fully support Rand Paul, but I do support him on some things.

      I’m sure that’s where they’re at.

    • whiteradish says:

      No one can be more arrogant than Jawbone. Sorry.

    • wrongonred says:

      Do you actually have an ideological disagreement with Rand, or is it just guilt by association? While there are positions Rand has taken which I disagree with, I understand why he takes them, if for no other reason than pragmatism alone. What other individual in the US Senate aside from Ted Cruz or Mike Lee, has stood so stalwartly for liberty and the Constitution? Who would you rather see run? Are you more of a Chris Christie or a Rick Santorum type guy? Both of them are much further toward 0 than Rand is. Maybe another milquetoast Republican who the most liberty focused of the Republican base will refuse to vote for is the way to go? Jeb Bush perhaps? Lindsay Graham?

      Sadly, the 2 party system is become more and more a false construct on a daily basis. It is one party with different flavors of statism racing towards 0 above, be it Rick Santorum’s Conservative Flavor of statism where the government enforces “morality”, or Obama’s flavor of statism where the government is worshiped as a benevolent deity.

      In all of this, Rand Paul is one of the only guys saying, “Hey, what if we just made the government so small, that it did not have the power to usurp liberties?” and this seems to be a novel idea in the landscape at the moment. Palin is right, libertarianism is healthy. Both Madison and Jefferson were libertarians in today’s sense of the term.

    • jwoop66 says:

      I refuted this guy on all three points. You CENSOR it?! again?! I think censorship is a sorry ass leftist/tyrant tactic. If it were for “language”, that is still kinda lame, but at least it is based on a standard. I look at some of the goofy, childish stuff that you do post(allow), and it baffles me why I would be censored? Was it the rich kid remark? In our over entitled society, affluent children often set the bar for self-centered arrogance. You gonna deny that, sundance? Does that comment offend you? Ha! Believe me, I am intimately aware of the potential for arrogance in “well-off” children. It really was a small point in my posting. Certainly valid considering what the previous poster’s argument was.

      The bigger point, though, is censorship. Its your blog; obviously you run it however you want. To take the name Breitbart and use it to set a tone and then do sorry stuff like censor people while proclaiming to advocate for free markets and free ideas strikes me as hypocritical. I don’t think Breitbart would approve. Britbart had brass fucking balls! oops… sorry for the icky language.

      other than that, Sundance- great site!

  2. 9thGenerationAmerican says:

    Wrong……..Rand Paul is the “kind” of “Statesman” we need. However, Ted Cruz is “the” “Statesman” we desparately must have, Sarah Palin too. However she is a threat to the left because she DOES make sense, and face it, what we DON’T need is an intelligent “Woman” who makes sense…….completely off the “script” that the “progs” layed down back in the 60’s and 70’s and have been desparately trying to maintain ever since through abortion and “Oprah Winfrey”. It is ALWAYS revealing when an otherwise “intelligent” person finds “fault” in sensibility. May I suggest you stop watching MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC..yes CNN etc., etc. and utilise that seemingly oxymoronic idea of “common sense”! I am going to assume you are under the age of 50-55 and therefore have never experienced a “better time”.

  3. 22tula says:

    Ted Cruz is a Statesman, but he is not a Natural Born Citizen, so he is not eligible to become the President of the United States.

    • canadacan says:

      We’ve had this argument before but this is the case.
      Ted Cruz’s mother is an American citizen his birth was registered at the American Embassy before he was 3 months old and he returned to the United States and lived there for more than 5 years before he was 26 years of age. Congress as of 2011 recognizes him as a natural born citizen this is a grey
      area but this is the way it stands right now.
      Yes Ted Cruz can run for president. and if I had moved to the United States before I was 26 years old and lived there for five years I too could run for president

      • canadacan says:

        Fortunately you all will be spared that

        • canadacan says:

          I was trying to be humorous I am a huge I mean huge Ted Cruz fan.
          I was trying to be funny and say that you were spared the fact that Canada can would not run for president.
          Thank you for concurring with me” wrong on red” and you are now on my Christmas card list

          • whiteradish says:

            You can be POTUS because some liberal hodge-podge politician in the Obama Admin recently insinuated that Mexico and Canada are all part of America. There you go! The real horse’s mouth was probably ValJar.

            • czarowniczy says:

              ValJar – right person, wrong end of the horse. The progs and some republicans have been on that American Union crap for years, a union of the Great White North, the dusty dry south and the rapidly disappearing American middle. Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t the desire for some in the government to get their hands on Canadian water and oil and cheap Mexican labor that will be the end of us all.

              • canadacan says:

                That manifest destiny is a bunch of crap. the Mexicans would fight the Canadians would fight.
                There are some stupid Mexicans also who think they should get back their old provinces from Spanish times.

                You can forget that too.
                There was an article many years ago in a Canadian newspaper

                • canadacan says:

                  The article sarcastically referred to the Canadian Prime Minister as the Canadian representative who was recently
                  summoned to Washington. talk like that will get you killed north and south of the border

                • czarowniczy says:

                  Ah yes, the Mexican ‘reconquista’ LaRaza groups. They can’t wait to get their hands on the pre-1832ish US lands that were Mexican so that they can turn them into the gilded paradise that Mexico is today. In all I see the ‘one continenters’ slowly trying to unite the US, Canada and Mexico but I don’t see it happening in the lifetimes of children yet to be born. My most likely scenario is the Latin Americans will continue to have children at an accelerated rate, their economies will continue to stagnate for the usual reasons, and they will flood into the US and Canada becoming the majority through sheer numbers. I do believe that Canada still has the official policy to raise the national population 1% a year, for the foreseeable future, through immigration so the Latino/a movement into cooler climes should work right in there.

              • whiteradish says:

                “ValJar – right person, WRONG END of the horse.”

                Ha, ha!

          • 9thGenerationAmerican says:

            You’re pretty smart for a Canadian…..also just kidding….you have always been someone on this site I have gained much affirmation from. I agree with you 100% on Ted Cruz and the legality of a “legal” but moreover CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility for the office. We know more about Ted than we do of obama.

    • wrongonred says:

      Pretty sure you are in a minority in that assessment, and likely incorrect. While there is no tested case law at this time, Cruz’s mother was a US Citizen, who had previously resided in the US for the time required prior to his birth in Calgary to transfer US Citizenship to her son. Even the same Constitutional Scholars who argued McCain’s ineligibility in 2008 concede that Cruz is eligible, due to the 1937 Law passed by the US Congress (year after McCain was born in the PCZ) extending citizenship status to the children of US citizens born on foreign soil. It is a result of this law that Cruz is a natural born US Citizen.

    • whiteradish says:

      Jawbone is no more NatBorn than Ted Cruz and he’s for all intents and purposes, POTUS today. Let’s point the gun but not at ourselves.

  4. Sam says:

    I’m wondering about anarchy being at the extreme of freedom. Maybe it is in a justly ordered society. However, a just society implies that there are rules to follow even if they are unwritten whereas anarchy literally means no authority and no rules. No rules tips the scale back to survival of the fittest and lack of freedom. That’s my quick 2 cents anyway. I’m still working on where to put anarchy on my personal scale.

    Okay, back to Sarah Palin. She’s right about the healthy libertarian streak when it means more freedom. The last thing we need is another big government RINO like Christie. We also don’t need a Libertarian Party flake. I’m not sure about Rand Paul yet. I wish Ted Cruz were a natural born citizen. It didn’t matter for Democrats, but it will matter if Republicans try to run someone who either wasn’t born in the US or has even one non-citizen parent. Dems have no shame; they wouldn’t hesitate to attack Ted Cruz on that ground.

    • wrongonred says:

      I think this is where there is a great deal of confusion. Anarchy does not mean “no rules”, it just means that there is no government which exists to use compulsive force in order to restrict the liberty of the individual to compel them to do or not do something. This does not mean that these forces do not exist, as society still exists, just that there is no government to restrict liberty. In fact, there are varying types of “anarchy” and they are not the moral equivalent of hedonism. For example, Anarcho-Capitalism is based upon the non-aggression principle, and that the marketplace can resolve disputes between parties, rather than the government. For example, in a Anarcho-Capitalist society, the issue of poverty would be dealt with by private charities, churches, and individuals, not by using aggression for force someone to involuntarily remit payment to the government (taxes) so that the government can redistribute those funds. An anarcho-capitalist would believe that the most effective and efficient distribution of capital to solve the issue of poverty would be made by the market, as it has a vested interest in ensuring such a distribution, as it is not a disinterested party who can just compel more taxes if it is inefficient. I would suggest you read some of the works of Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner, as they will likely change your perception of the term. Might not convert you, but I think they will make you realize that the existence of government is contrary to liberty by its very nature, and is not a no holds barred, do whatever you want without repercussion society that many instinctively envision when they hear the word.

  5. whiteradish says:

    Rand Paul is less law than perhaps others on the Conservative spectrum but he’s inarguably a Constitutionalist.

    • wrongonred says:

      What do you mean by “less law”? Less statist? “Fewer Laws” by their very nature means “more liberty” and I for one will support the liberty of the individual over “more laws” any day. I have a God, which is not government, and would much prefer to follow his commandments and exercise his blessing of free will than those constructs of men.

      • whiteradish says:

        I meant less law. If I meant anarchy, I would have said anarchy.

        By the way, your God is not everyone’s God. There are Deis’ Gods and Theis’ Gods, as only two possibilities. Deists believe in god through nature and logic as opposed to Theists. People arrive at God through different paths. People are at different points in the road toward God, and coming from different directions. Some laws are necessary. While I do agree, not all man-made laws are moral, such as the ridiculous Freedom of Art law that allowed a photographer to profit from secretly shooting photos of children through windows in New York. As for Rand Paul, there can be a whole discussion on whether the US military should ever have been involved in numerous foreign wars.

        • whiteradish says:

          Sorry, I meant Deism and Theism are only two constructs out of many for understanding how people see God, which means they arrive at a belief from different routes. Sorry long day, and off topic, so I’ll stop there.

  6. whiteradish says:

    Back on the discussion of anarchy, it is not a condition that exists from a lack or sparcity of laws, it is also “political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control” or when politicians themselves excuse themselves from the country’s law, press the law in arbitrary ways on others and usually do not apply the law fairly. The current Obama administration churns out thousands of new laws every day, while rarely following the most basic of all, the Constitution. The country is in a state of anarchy today under this regime: Benghazi, IRS, NSA, Obamacare, Terrorist Protection Act (I made that up but that is how lawless Barry’s admin is they make stuff up as they go to suit their agenda = anarchy = let’s protect the Boston Bombers and pay Rolling Stones to write a junk article praising Tsarnut). My apologies for this spiel.

  7. 9thGenerationAmerican says:

    White…no apology necessary……great posts…..

    • Spar Harmon says:

      I’ve BEEN REFRESHING MYSELF ON THE climate of ideas in which our leading thinkers were operating– notably John Locke, Hume vs Berkely, etc….Mucho evidence in the correspondence between Jefferson, Adams, young Madison, etc in the period leading up to the drawing up of the Dec of Ind and the process of Articles of Confederation and finally our Constitution.
      Terms: Anarchy in those discussions was NOT synonymous with chaos. Actually it was the desired end product, indeed the natural result of a free people no longer needing external structures of governance; our Constitution was meant to be a minimum interim degree of external governance until the people no longer needed it…clearly we ain’t there yet. The push we are seeing is in the opposite direction: the Tyranny of Chaos…

      • Spar Harmon says:

        …and of course, in the political push-pull of interests, the resulting Constitution had many flaws like the enfranchisement of a limited segment of the population to vote, allowing slavery owners to continue, and such… The amendments were meant to correct and close gaps left to wide too contain some negative tendencies of society.
        And greed of some, the prejudices of others, the inability of many to
        live in loving regard for one another, all created scenarios which gnawed at the Constitutional fabric.
        We need more dialogue about what unites us and where we want to go.

      • unitron says:

        “…indeed the natural result of a free people no longer needing external structures of governance…”

        As with Marxism, if it depends upon human nature changing radically from what it’s been for the last few tens of thousands if not million years, I ain’t holdin’ my breath.

      • wrongonred says:

        ^ times infinity. I tried to make this point earlier in the thread, though much less cogently and succinctly as you did. You are spot on. Seems most are indoctrinated with the idea that “Anarchy” is evil and chaotic. They think of the G8 protester “anarchists” and not the James Madison/Thomas Jefferson “anarchists.” Anarchy is the state of freedom from Government coercion, otherwise known as “liberty.”

        While you are reading Locke and the Federalist Papers, I would also suggest Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner as well. Rothbard is one of the founding fathers of the Austrian School of Economic Theory, and “anarcho-capitalism” as he called it.

      • whiteradish says:

        “The tyranny of chaos.” Very apt description.

        In Barry’s regime, it ranges from Occutards who destroyed businesses and the resultaht payout of taxpayer money to some selected occupier lawbreakers who got sprayed with what? Pepper spray? to his key Selective Service entourage being arrested for soliciting but not paying prostitutes while on a “tour of duty” with Obama in S. America. America is in chaos now with illegals from prisons being set free, open borders, guns being walked to drug cartels. Now we’re seeing the middle east fall apart, much of it facilitated by Obama and his flaunting of Congressional checks and balances arming Libya, and on it goes. It is complete anarchy now. If the government doesn’t follow the amost basic of laws such as the Constitution of the nation and the president ignores his oath of office with no accountability, then anarchy is the condition and chaos is the result. His Gallup poll rating has fallen to 41%, the lowest possibly being 38%.

    • whiteradish says:

      Thanks 9th. Breitbart had great will to speak on behalf of Conservatism. For me, the mind clamors most to speak when tired and I cross my fingers that it was prudent.

  8. jordan2222 says:

    I lost my ranting post.. oh well is was only a self serving rant:
    t’s a matter of perspective. Few of us have the same one.

    Today I consider myself to be a Constitutional Conservative and am no longer allied with any party, although I do support most of the Tea Party Patriots agenda.

    I was 67 last Saturday, but the turning point for me occurred when, while taking a Money and Banking course, taught by a certain Major McVeigh at the University of Albuquerque. It was 1968 to 1969. McVeigh was an ardent Barrywater follower and so was I which opened the door to my being introduced to a very young Ron Paul from Texas.

    I can honestly say that I was not knowledgeable about political parties and their platforms prior to that but the Federal Reserve opened my eyes and led me to the crooked world of politics. My earlier years at Univ. of South Carolina brought me Wm. Buckley and the National Review.. required reading of our group, as was attending a few John Birch meetings.

    Moving fast forward, I reopened my original text books about the War Between the States, the Confederate Constitution and the one now mocked publicly. I later read about the Originalist Perspective, currently espoused by Scalia.and in particular the Federalist Papers,

    I twice campaigned door to door and voted for Ronald Reagen in spite of his difference with Ron Paul. I still think he has been the best during our last 50 years, and yes, I am well aware of his snafus.

    At some point I began to read about Libertarians and found my niche..well more than any other political group, who could never remain consistent and later became war wrongers. I am a disabled vet and no one I knew supported their wars. That is a huge issue for us and it is why so many vets supported Ron Paul, while knowing he could not win. It’s a matter of conscience. Who wants to sleep with the enemy? Yet, we do everyday and the enemy is not even visible, but I digress.

    After the last elections, I gave up. I no longer see a peaceful means to restore our Republic and surely cannot see any improvement in racial harmony. OTH, maybe I have it all wrong.

    If so, what am I missing?

    Some of my friends say I should tone down any mention of rebellion or revolution but that is how we got this republic in the first place. “Someone” stole it from us and we we now want it back. That Damned Patriot Act has brought to life George Orwell’s 1984.

    Some of what I have read and seen is not so bad for seniors at GITMO. LOL.

    I do support Rand Paul.

  9. 22tula says:

    “The World Without The USA”

  10. 22tula says:

    Military Solution is only one part of equation. There are many helpers.
    Mark Durie is one of them.
    The Third Choice
    So is Michael Ramsden

    • whiteradish says:

      Thank you, 22, I will have a closer look at the book. Incidently, the book can be bought at sources other than Amazon, which is owned by Bezos, who is likely in cahoots with Jawbone, coincidently having their biggest threats, iTunes, being legislated out of competing directly with Kindle. While I support lower prices for books, not at the expense of giving up book habits to the administration, NSA style.

      Everyone, just be ware, in light of the activity of the IRS inquiring into reading habits, etc. Select your book source purchasers with care, or use Vanilla Cards.

      Choices listed were:

      “Amazon (USA) or Amazon (UK) (hardback, paperback & kindle)


      Barnes and Noble (USA)

      The Book Depository – free worldwide shipping

      Koorong Books (Australia)”

  11. 22tula says:

    At Home helpers to name a few.
    Samuel Blumenfeld – Education

    Robert Zubrin – “Energy Victory”
    Open Fuel Standard

  12. 22tula says:

    “Degeneration and Regeneration after the Cold War’
    Niall Ferguson on importance of civil institutions.

    “A Prayer for Victory Over War Against America, 2012″
    By Arlen Williams – July 22, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s