Rand Paul

Rand Paul Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama Senate Race, Annoys Libertarians

If ever there were a would-be colleague who someone of even slight libertarian tendencies should be leery of, it is Roy Moore.

|

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who among other labels he's used for himself includes "constitutional conservative," today officially endorsed Republican Alabama Senate candidate, and former state Supreme Court judge, Roy Moore, who likes to describe himself that way as well.

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

"?Judge Roy Moore has spent a lifetime defending and standing up for the Constitution while fighting for the people of Alabama. We need more people in Washington, D.C. that will stand on principle and defend the Constitution?….I look forward to welcoming him to the Senate very soon," Paul said in his endorsement statement.

Any libertarian should be appalled by Moore, for reasons detailed further below, and by Paul endorsing him.

On the one hand, "Republican senator endorses another Republican senator" isn't huge news. But if ever there were a would-be colleague who someone of even slight libertarian tendencies should be leery of, it is Moore.

Shikha Dalmia wrote earlier this month about some of other things Moore spent his lifetime doing, adding up to a highly theocratic vision that she analogized to Saudi Arabia (despite Moore's paranoid belief that Sharia law exists in parts of America), including:

that he is the author of the misnamed 2005 Constitution Restoration Act that would give Congress the power to remove any judge who refuses to recognize God as the source of America's law. The bill also seeks to limit the power of the Supreme Court to overrule or punish any state official or judge acting in the name of God's law and, instead, would impeach the judges who take on such cases…nearly all of Moore's conservative backers—whether ethno-nationalists Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka or nativist rabble rouser Ann Coulter or Christian reconstructionist Mike Huckabee—want to create a Fortress America and cut off the outside world….exactly the kind of medieval social vision that Saudi Arabia, thanks to influence of hardline Wahhabi clerics not dissimilar to Moore, embraced three decades ago.

On what Paul partisans might consider the other hand, why, there is a lot about Moore, as discussed on his campaign website issue page, where he seems in line with Paul. Moore says he is for:

Lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending…the reduction of taxes at all levels…Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, States' Rights, and our Bill of Rights are integral parts of the Constitution which we must observe…We do not need socialized medicine which will ultimately lead to loss of quality and affordability of heath care, as well as a loss of access to the latest medical technology….

We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President…The federal government should not hamper the educational systems of the states as there is no authority for federal involvement under the Constitution….Competition between the states and freedom of various educational structures should be available to parents who are charged with the responsibility to teach their children…We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated and stand with allies to protect and preserve our national security…..Respect for our strength is the best defense. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" is and should be our guide.

Even on purely economic policy, though, Moore is terrible on government-managed energy policy to wean off of "foreign oil" and against trade deals for protectionist, not purist free trader, reasons. He is also a immigration restrictionist willing to see government money wasted on a pointless border wall.

Then there is the stuff Moore seems to consider really important. In a 2002 Alabama Supreme Court case, the would-be senator declared that: "Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society-the family."

So even granted agreements on taxes, spending, and health care, one might think rampant theocratic rejection of the rights of Americans of a certain religion to serve in Congress or of a certain sexual orientation to marry, adopt, or walk the earth as free men and women might tip the balance against Moore to those respecting either the Constitution or just American liberty.

Moore's alleged respect for checks and balances in our constitutional order is as well skewed toward his own willful desire to insist his vision of God supersedes the Constitution, as see his supporting state establishment of religion by letting himself be booted off the Alabama bench in 2003 over his insistence on keeping a granite monument to the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court.

He was suspended from his re-won position on Alabama's Supreme Court last year for defying a federal court order regarding the overturning of Alabama's laws against same-sex marriage.

"Nearly any candidate running for office that isn't named Paul will likely give some aspect of Rand's folks heartburn," a political observer close to Paul noted today via email. Moore's positives from Paul's perspective likely include: "anti establishment and not beholden to anyone; focus on the constitution; would have voted with Rand on fake Obamacare repeals; has said foreign aid is unconstitutional; wants congress to exert its authority on war issues."

The observer notes that Paul doesn't seem to "believe there is one conditional/libertarian position on immigration, life and gay 'rights' (outside of protecting everyone's natural rights)."

While the latter is true, Moore's attitudes toward homosexual citizens goes far beyond merely not wanting them to have "special rights." Moore, as he declared from the bench in the that 2002 case, believes all American homosexuals who have a sex life in line with their preferences are for that very reason criminals. The Paul endorsement is a depressing sign of how much personal liberty America's political class, even the supposedly freedom-oriented ones, are willing to give up in exchange for lip service to tax cuts.

Paul's office had not responded for a request for comment on libertarian misgivings over Moore as of press time.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Justice Department Is Now Going After Chinese Fentanyl Manufacturers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. One thing I am interested in is why certain politicians become so talked about, while the vast majority go uncommented.

    There are many, many Senators who wield a lot of power simply by virtue being a senator, who are never discussed. I’m sure amongst them you can find many views that are abhorrent or bothersome from a libertarian perspective. The simple fact that we don’t have a particularly libertarian government proves that.

    Why do the same 10 or so names get bandied around constantly?

    1. A lot of that has to do with the biases of the people doing the talking. Everyone’s guilty of it. It sort of comes down to what scares you most. Libertarians in particular do swing on both sides of the spectrum here. Some libertarians are far more scared of Republicans, so they gripe about a particular group of politicians– same for the more ‘right-leaning’ libertarians who gripe non-stop about what the Democrats are doing.

      It may also have to do with where you live and what you experience going on around you. I have no problem admitting that Democrats scare me more than Republicans, mainly because from my perspective, Republicans seem incompetent and ineffective– and in my particular neck of the woods, they literally hold no sway or power over legislative initiatives– so I actually feel the wrath of crazy lefties everywhere I turn. Things might be different if I lived in West Virginia.

      1. There is that, and I think that is obvious, but I mean why are there are only a very small subset of senators on both sides that are constantly analyzed and their views held to the first? What’s the senator from Wyoming saying? He might not be viewed as a power player, but his vote counts the same as Paul’s or Schumer ultimately.

        It’s just like my issue of why we only hear consistently about maybe 10 states. Certainly Iowa is up to something. Though this bias is easier to understand as this website does have a bias towards the bigger cities, a common bias but one nonetheless.

        1. I’ve been complaining about this place’s urban bias for a while now. Presumably it has to do with the purest of motivations, dollars. They target the most impressionable demographic, just like TV commercials. The closed-minded republican in suburbia isn’t ever going to waste his time reading your magazine, he has a job and kids and shit. So no need for a “to be sure” to soften anything, just point out his foibles and spit on him, it’ll help gain some points with the closed-minded urban commies instead.

          Though it probably has a lot to do with the authors being urban themselves. And of course the fear of becoming “infested” with alt-right or racists and becoming one of “those sites”.

          1. What would a “rural bias” look like anyway, for a libertarian website? Liberty is liberty.

            1. This issue of urban vs rural is huge and shows up in election demographics. Hillary won (probably with more than a little inner city vote fraud … ala Chicago) pretty much every major city, and Trump won everything else.

              The “urban bias” is huge because the portion of our nation that is “traditional Christian” is majority rural, the economic devastation of losing manufacturing not replaced by tech jobs is overwhelmingly rural, The folks who serve in the military are overwhelmingly, almost exclusively at this point, rural.

              1. In short, we have an economic divide that matches a cultural divide.

                An urban liberal culture comprised on white collar folks who see no problem with how things are going since all is good for them, and a under-educated poverty class living on massive transfer payments from government that vote to keep the money flowing. Both have become secular and largely non-religious.

                Then you have a rural conservative culture comprised of blue collar folks who see no jobs and no prospects. Much more religious that the urban folks, they believe the government is being used to drive their moral views out of the mainstream. They are more traditionally patriotic and see millions of illegal immigrants driving wages down, insisting on speaking their own language rather than English, changing the character of the country. And on top of all that, their kids are the ones being sent to every world shithole to die as solders who joined because the felt it was their duty to defend their country.

                And for decades, the rural voters have elected Republicans expecting changes and got none. Now they are mightily pissed and are demanding changes from the representatives they elected.

                And you wonder how Trump got elected? or even Roy Moore?

                And you REALLY wonder how Trump got elected?

                1. The rural white people are also living on massive transfer payments from government. Appalachia anyone? The wealthier people in cities are subsidizing the rural people for the most part.

              2. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $70h to $86h.. Go this site and start your work..

                Good luck….. http://www.webcash20.com

            2. What would a “rural bias” look like anyway, for a libertarian website? Liberty is liberty.

              The Glibs make this pretty clear. God is good, immigrants are bad.

            3. “What would a “rural bias” look like anyway, for a libertarian website? Liberty is liberty.”

              Yeah if only reason were consistent on liberty…

              But as for your question, the post I responded to was about why certain people or cities get disproportionate coverage out of this giant country with its giant govt.

              There was a funny blog post a week or so ago that started like “you need look no farther than New York City to find an example of…” whatever it was. But NYC is outer space to most Americans.

              1. Don’t forget about suburban by the way. Quite a different political mindset.

        2. My suspicion (and I don’t have anything to back it up right at the moment) is that they tend to focus on people/races where there is some competition. This race in Alabama seems to be competitive between two republican candidates. They focused on that Virginia election extensively a few years ago. Iowa is usually a competitive race for president, so that gets coverage. In contrast, Mike Enzi has been senator in Wyoming for 20 years. Basically Alabama is big news right now as an internal proxy fight for republican leadership.

          Then there’s always people like Boxer, Feinstein, McCain, Reid, Pelosi who get lots of attention. That’s more due to leadership roles and lots of influence.

          Also there’s plenty of coverage for nut cases who say the most ridiculously ignorant stuff.

          1. Sorry… asleep at the switch. Alabama primary runoff already happened. But, i think that’s why that election and participants were regularly in the news.

      2. And I think it has something to do with how I was raised, but I also tend to side with Republicans more often. I don’t often see Democrats who I agree with, it’s hard to say whether if it is purely bias or a realer difference of opinion.

        1. Democrats are wrong 99% of the time, republicans only 95%.

          IMHO.

          1. Pretty much

          2. Republicans are generally pretty good on the 1st and 2nd Amendment, and economics in general. They tend to suck on foreign policy and the 4th amendment.

            The Democrats suck on the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, economics, foreign policy, the 4th amendment, and pretty much every other major issue I can think of.

            Reason is like the NFL, trying to cater to a group that would rather see them destroyed, a group that will only give their approval when Reason undermines itself.

            1. Republicans are “good on the 1st”?

              Only if you’re straight white and Christian. Then they get very upset over your free speech, association, and religion rights.

            2. As Escher says, Republicans are only good on the 1st if you are Christian. If not, then they are terrible. Like Democrats, they’re support for free speech only extends as long as the content of your speech is something they find agreeable.

              With regards to economics, at best they talk a better game than democrats. As blatantly demonstrated over the last six months or so, when they’re in charge they are more than eager to throw money away as fast as humanly possible.

              1. Straw man. Demonstrate a mainstream Republican who wants to censor freedom of (political) speech. Show me a mainstream Democrat who wants to do the same, while you’re at it.

          3. I used to lean more heavily Republican until Trump came along and they switched sides on trade.
            Now it’s pretty evenly balanced. Democrats are right about race relations, the culture wars more generally, drugs, immigration, and foreign policy more often than not. Republicans are right about capitalism, regulation, taxes, and spending, which are pretty huge issues, but they are wrong about almost everything else. The nationalism, the religious conservatism, the warmongering – all garbage. On the environment, both sides are fucked. The D’s are right that AGW is happening, but wrong about what to do about it. The left has it’s retarded organic, anti-GMO, vegan, anti-nuke luddites which nearly cancel out the Jesus freaks on the right.

            1. We’ll said. A pox on both houses.

            2. Yes to all of that.


            3. Democrats are right about race relations, the culture wars more generally, drugs, immigration, and foreign policy more often than not.

              Sorry, but that’s pretty laughable. Democrats believe some races are inherently better than others, that any culture that doesn’t fit their preconceptions is invalid, that drug laws that ruin lives are a great idea, that immigration is only good when the immigrant is uneducated, and that foreign policy is something you have the President do with a pen and it generally involves shooting missiles at people without much regard for their status as a civilian or hostile.

              Sure, there is some overlap on some of those issues with guys like McCain, but you would have to pretend that people like Warren, Feinstein, and Clinton aren’t a Democrat to believe much of this horse shit.

              Obviously this is no defense of the Republicans, but I find it interesting what you think Democrats are ‘good’ on.

          4. Hahaha, I’ve always said the exact same thing.

          5. Good one. Can I use that?

    2. Why do the same 10 or so names get bandied around constantly?

      It’s relative to the perceived “normal” politicians. After all, the US engages in endless “preemptive” wars, has the worlds largest prison population that puts minors and the mentally handicapped in cages, engages in drug wars and considers drug use as worthy of a felony, chokes small businesses through cronyism and red tape, etc. In both parties.

      When those things are the norm, a theocratic politician still stands out because they’re more openly authoritarian, but not necessarily more authoritarian.

  2. The Paul endorsement is a depressing sign of how much personal liberty America’s political class, even the supposedly freedom-oriented ones, are willing to give up in exchange for lip service to tax cuts.

    Government spending does directly relate to freedom. As does unending war in foreign nations and growth of the governments intercession in every day life. I’m not justifying Moore either way, but that is a needlessly reductionist statement that just reads like a chiding and exasperated mother brushing away a child.

    1. And there are TWO choices in that Alabama election. Are you REALLY saying you thing the Democrat is a better choice? So Paul should have endorsed the Democrat.

      Actually, since 80% of the Reason staff is more Progressive that Libertarian, I think you DO believe that.

      1. He didn’t have to endorse anyone.

        1. If Paul wants to run against Trump in the 2020 primaries, he needs Alabama.

          1. He needs a a non-fascist platform. But that would lose his core base.

    2. If tax cuts were an actual thing, then some level of trade-off here might be worth discussing. But, I think Doherty is emphasizing that it is a trade-off of liberty vs lip service.

      Call me when Republicans actually cut taxes. Or spending. As Juice says, there is no need for him to endorse anyone in this race.

  3. Paul endorsed Moore over his Demcratic rival.

    Meet Doug Jones.

    “Jones identified increasing the minimum wage, prioritizing education as a job creator, encouraging renewable energy and conservation, abortion rights, and preventing discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions as policy priorities.”

    From Jones’ campaign Web site:

    “A Living Wage: So many people in our state work multiple jobs with long hours and still can’t make ends meet. It is past time that our minimum wage should be a living wage….

    “Environment: I want to be perfectly clear: I believe in science. The impact of unchecked fossil fuels on our planet and our health has not been in dispute for decades. Period….We should be encouraging investment in renewable energy and conservation as ways to create new jobs and make ourselves energy independent.

    “Women’s Health & Equality: I will defend women’s access to contraception and a woman’s right to choose and fight any legislation or executive action that would allow insurance companies to discriminate against women. Planned Parenthood provides essential preventative and reproductive health care services like cancer screenings, STD testing and low-cost birth control to millions of American women who have no insurance or otherwise can’t afford these services. I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

    1. I will defend women’s access to contraception and a woman’s right to choose and fight any legislation or executive action that would allow insurance companies to discriminate against women.

      So, I’m trying not to argue a numbers game about how unlikely Moore will be at enacting a Theocracy so I will focus on a different point. Presumably they are talking about legislation that allows those with moral disagreement to opt out of certain insurance requirements. We are comparing the possible moral constraints that Moore will put upon people. The opponent is talking about continuing a very real placement of moral constraint on people, and that is perhaps worthy of consideration. This website has consistently supported these rights and I will give them credit for that.

      1. Moore won’t be enacting a theocracy but that’s only because he can’t, not because he doesn’t want to.

    2. Yeah, this is kind of the main point.

      Funny how Reason (and Doherty in particular) vacillates between insisting on absolute libertarian purity (even in one’s endorsements!) when talking about Rand Paul, and scolding anyone who quibbled with Gary Johnson’s utter rejection of basic libertarian tenets because he was the “lesser evil”.

      1. You people never did grasp what the fuck “basic libertarian tenets” are. Or the constitution. Brainwashed puppets of the Paulista Cult, the intellectual seeds for the alt-right. Anti-government is NOT pro-liberty.

        Umm, what did Gary Johnson do that comes close to Ron/Rand Paul’s REJECTION of Federalism for the KKK version of States Rights? The facsist claim that only “rogue judges” would honor the 9th Amendment they all quat to shit on. That claim that state governments can have powers never delegated, withy NO constitutional limits. The Paulista’s REJECT balance of power between three CO-EQUAL branches, and the entire concept of checks and balances … while claiming to be “strict constitutional conservatives.” Bullshit.

        Did you cheer when Rand committed a massive fuckup, revealing the moral hypocrisy of Paulistas? Who else is crazy enough to believe they can appeal to BOTH Berkeley liberals and the Christian Taliban … in less than a week!

        First, a standing ovation at Berkeley, on non-intervention. Then, a few days later, he calls for nationwide religious “tent revivals” to address the grave threat to America of … marriage equality. Get thee behind me, Satan ? Ron/Rand’s cult, Alex Jones, and all those who oppose only the size of government … but not its power..

        You DARE to rank Roy Moore above Gary Johnson? Shame on you,
        Left – Right = Zero

        1. Damn right!

        2. LOL

          I am impressed! Not many can suck their own dick like that.

          1. Do you have anything adult?

        3. Anti-government is NOT pro-liberty.

          …all those who oppose only the size of government … but not its power.

          Methinks you have a serious issue understanding cause and effect.

          1. Methinks you have a serious issue understanding cause and effect.

            Is marriage equality an issue of government size … or power?

            (I did NOT pay Deven to prove my point!)

            1. Can one have a large government without power? Obviously you can have a small government with a lot of power a la a Dictatorship but…at the same time are we just not including their army as government because from that point of view they really aren’t that small.

              1. Can one have a large government without power?

                Do you have anything relevant to what I said?
                You’ve ignored the issue … and created a diversion from my question,

                “Is marriage equality an issue of government size … or power?”

                Several of you have evaded the issue. No surprise here.

                1. It’s absolutely applicable because it would seem to me that in your example one of those things doesn’t exist at all, so what you are suggesting is a comparison between a thing that does exist and thing that doesn’t. In other words, a stupid question.

                  So, let me ask you again, can you have a large government without power? I contend that you can not.

                  That said, marriage equality is also a misnomer. The government has absolutely no business whatsoever, and is in fact prohibited outright, from respecting the establishment of a religion and yet here we see that the Christian act of marriage was in fact encouraged through tax policy contra the United States constitution. This also means that gay marriage is in the exact same boat.

                  Any questions?

                  1. “Christian act of marriage”?

                    Did, marriage predates Christianity. Hell, for it’s first thousands years the religion didn’t perform marriage at all. Halfway through the Dark Ages the church started performing marriage, but mostly as a way to every control over people.

                    “Christian act of marriage” indeed.

                  2. t would seem to me that in your example one of those things doesn’t exist at all,

                    OMG. I say BOTH power and size should be EQUALLY opposed … so YOU “think” that means ONLY ONE OF THEM EXISTS!

        4. Yet you have no problem trying to link Rand Paul to Alex Jones. Not to mention the very idea of ‘Christian Taliban’ is based on what Christianity was somewhere around 500 years ago whereas the Taliban is active today across much of the Middle East.

          Not saying you’re wrong or right, but you’re definitely full of hyperbole and I wager I could guess what your pants are full of too.

        5. First, a standing ovation at Berkeley, on non-intervention. Then, a few days later, he calls for nationwide religious “tent revivals” to address the grave threat to America of … marriage equality.

          Which perfectly illustrates complete lack of principle on the federal government’s reach and role in the US and world.

          Principle means that all decisions and advocacy are consistent with one another.

          1. Yet you have no problem trying to link Rand Paul to Alex Jones.

            Not what I said, but you’re wrong either way.

            Not to mention the very idea of ‘Christian Taliban’ is based on what Christianity was somewhere around 500 years ago

            Try again The (un)Holy Inquisition was committing moral atrocities at our founding (hence Separation) and continued until roughly our Civil War — less than a third of your false assertion.

            whereas the Taliban is active today across much of the Middle East.

            Seeking a theocratic state, just like their Christian counterparts here.

            Not saying you’re wrong or right, but you’re definitely full of hyperbole

            Says the guy who claims our Civil War was 500 years ago!!

            and I wager I could guess what your pants are full of too.

            So typical of you people. And your rants.

            1. Ah, I see now. You’re a line-by-line quote guy. Well, I’m not including it as an argument but that is indicative of a troll along with your language.

              Honestly, I would try and answer your questions but I’m having trouble reading in between your ad hominem arguments. Could you try to be a little more lucid?

              As for Christians seeking a theocracy, well I’m sure you could point at a few fringe groups but I’m curious where all the Christian terrorist bombers are that based their screeds on the bible. False equivalence much?

              Sadly, you would have fairly difficult time linking the Civil War with Christians seeking a theocratic state. Perhaps you misunderstood my point, or perhaps I wasn’t clear, but Muslim’s are at least 500 years behind Christian reformation efforts.

              1. I’m curious where all the Christian terrorist bombers are

                You don’t know what “theocratic ” means either!

                that based their screeds on the bible

                Are you ignorant of the Bible, the Quran, or both? The Quran preaches violence in self-defense only — Christ specifically preached AGAINST self-defense, If you believe violence is permissable in self-defense, then you follow Mohamed and reject Christ.

                It’s ONLY the Old Testament God that demands the immediate killing of all infidels — even if your own brother, spouse or friend! And the mass genocide of an entire civilization, the Canaanites. NOTHING in the Quran is so barbaric.

                But you probably swallow the bullshit that ISIS is following the Quran. No more so than Christians follow THEIR Bible.

                1. The Quran preaches violence in self-defense only

                  Thank you for proving that you know fuck all about the Quran.

                  1. Thank you for proving that you know fuck all about the Quran.

                    Says the eagerly brainwashed thug.

                2. Christ specifically preached AGAINST self-defense

                  Wrong (exactly the same wrong thing that Hihn says, huh…).

                  Luke 22:36-28. Also, he defended his Father’s property by driving the money changers out of the Temple.

                  “Turn the other cheek” is for insults and non-deadly assaults. It isn’t for actual attacks.

                  It’s ONLY the Old Testament God that demands the immediate killing of all infidels

                  Does the property owner have property rights? If God is the owner of the land, and allows certain people to live on it, does he have a right to tell them what they may do while on that land?

                  The things you are quoting only applied to the ancient Jews and only while they were on the land of Palestine:

                  “At that time the LORD commanded me to teach you statutes and ordinances for you to follow in the land you are about to cross into and possess.” Deuteronomy 4:14

                  “These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess–as long as you live in the land.” Deuteronomy 12:1

                  God told them over and over that they were getting the land as an inheritance and that it was his land, not theirs:

                  “The land is not to be permanently sold because it is Mine, and you are only foreigners and temporary residents on My land.” Leviticus 25:23

                  So, once again, you are attempting to speak about something about which you have no understanding.

                  But, still, God Bless you, Hihn!

                  1. MORE lies by the ANTI-CHRIST stalker!!.

                    “Turn the other cheek” is for insults and non-deadly assaults. It isn’t for actual attacks.

                    I NEVER SAID DEADLY. YOU ARE SO FUCKING FULL OF SHIT..

                    http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm
                    If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

                    THAT IS SUBMISSION!

                    Judas betrayed Him only three times. You betray Him daily..

                    1. I NEVER SAID DEADLY. YOU ARE SO FUCKING FULL OF SHIT.

                      No, you said:

                      Christ specifically preached AGAINST self-defense

                      Which would refer to ALL times. You are wrong.

                      THAT IS SUBMISSION!

                      Yes, because proclaiming God’s good news, that sin has been defeated by his Son’s death on the cross, that he repaired your relationship with him and may live forever with him, is much more important than getting people back for their evil. After all, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

                      You betray Him daily.

                      To my shame, I do still sin. Just not here and not now.

                      But regardless of your constant uncorrectable misuse of Scripture, God loves you Hihn!

                      May the Lord bless you and keep you.
                      May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
                      and be gracious to you.
                      May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
                      and give you peace.

        6. Hi, Hihn.

          You people never did grasp what the fuck “basic libertarian tenets” are. Or the constitution.

          They are at odds with each other. NAP is contrary to government of any amount.

          Christian Taliban… Ron/Rand’s cult

          Helpful to the discussion.

          Anti-government is NOT pro-liberty… all those who oppose only the size of government … but not its power

          Size and power are directly related. Government is the antithesis of liberty. Everyone has the right to do anything other than initiate force. Government is twice an initiation of force, definitionally, first through taxation (theft) and again by enforcing a monopoly on force (assault/murder).

          Now, if your point was simply that Rand was wrong for bothering to endorse this statist, then I’d agree with you.

          Don’t pretend you’re not Hihn. I have lots of links proving you are.

          But God Bless you, Hihn! He loves you and will forgive you regardless of what you do!

          May the Lord bless you and keep you.
          May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
          and be gracious to you.
          May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
          and give you peace.

          1. Size and power are directly related

            You missed the point.

            all those who oppose only the size of government … but not its power

            So …. why oppose the SIZE, but not the POWER? And you claim to be an anarchist!

            I gave some examples here.
            https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7002518

            1. You missed the point.

              Not really. I point out things that are wrong. You cannot be for smaller without being for less powerful government.

              why oppose the SIZE, but not the POWER?

              They are the same thing.

              And you claim to be an anarchist!

              I’m an An-Cap. It’s like being a libertarian except logically consistent. Government is definitionally evil.

              God Bless you, Hihn!

              May the Lord bless you and keep you.
              May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
              and be gracious to you.
              May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
              and give you peace.

              1. why oppose the SIZE, but not the POWER?

                They are the same thing.

                Uhhh, the Paulista Cut moves in opposite directions on those!

                They would shrink the SIZE of government (spending) … but increase the POWER of government to control personal behavior and deny equal rights..

                1. Paulista Cut

                  Not helpful to name call.

                  They would shrink the SIZE of government (spending) … but increase the POWER of government to control personal behavior and deny equal rights..

                  That’s not possible. Government power is defined by how much it spends.

                  God Bless you, Hihn!

                  May the Lord bless you and keep you.
                  May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
                  and be gracious to you.
                  May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
                  and give you peace.

                  1. They would shrink the SIZE of government (spending) … but increase the POWER of government to control personal behavior and deny equal rights..

                    That’s not possible. Government power is defined by how much it spends.

                    Non-responsive.. And wrong., Denial is not an argument,. They’re doing exactly that with marriage equality — which has nothing to do with spending. Likewise abortion.

                    How much spending was required to enforce government power in:
                    1) Jim Crow laws?.
                    2) School segregation?
                    3) Denial of inter-racial marriage?
                    4) Military draft?
                    5) Slavery?

                    How much spending would have been required if Ron Paul’s shameful bill had passed – stripping homosexuals of the ability to defend their constitutional rights in the courts, the first such denial since Emancipation?

                    Paulista Cult

                    Not helpful to name call.

                    Not helpful to deny the dictionary.

                    1. Non-responsive

                      Do you even know what that means? I responded and told you that you are wrong.

                      Denial is not an argument

                      Assertion isn’t an argument either.

                      They’re doing exactly that with marriage equality — which has nothing to do with spending. Likewise abortion.

                      You need government spending to make it illegal (A), investigate/arrest (B), and try/convict (C). (Now that’s an argument!)

                      How much spending was required to enforce government power in:
                      1) Jim Crow laws?.
                      2) School segregation?
                      3) Denial of inter-racial marriage?
                      4) Military draft?
                      5) Slavery?

                      Lots, see above.

                      How much spending would have been required if Ron Paul’s shameful bill had passed – stripping homosexuals of the ability to defend their constitutional rights in the courts

                      More.

                      Not helpful to deny the dictionary.

                      Perhaps the most fitting definition: “a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing”.

                      So if that were true, then calling you a member of the “David Nolan Cult” would be quite accurate, no? Or we could just try to stick to the matter at hand instead?

                    2. One more time for the morally depraved ….

                      Non-responsive

                      Do you even know what that means?

                      It means you keep running away from — and changing — the issue

                      …… IS MARRIAGE EQUALITY AN ISSUE OF GOVERNMENT SIZE … OR POWER?

                      YOU EVEN MADE THE DUMBFUCK CLAIM THAT “GOVERNMENT POWER IS DEFINED BY HOW MUCH IS SPENDS

                      “HOW MUCH” (hold that “thought”_

                      With pathertic bullshit like this

                      ,they’re doing exactly that with marriage equality — which has nothing to do with spending. .

                      You need government spending to make it illegal (A), investigate/arrest (B), and try/convict (C). (Now that’s an argument!)

                      It’s STUPID.
                      1) THEY SIMPLY REFUSE TO ISSUE A LICENSE..
                      2) YOU FORGOT YOUR OWN POINT – CHANGING “HOW MUCH” GOVERNMENT SPENDS
                      — TO THAT GOVERNMENT SPENDS AT ALL.

                      Or … Extreme socon says it’s only a “minor” power because it only affects fucking fags)
                      Typical brainwashed Rothbardian/Paulista cult.

                    3. It means you keep running away from — and changing — the issue

                      Reading comprehension issue.

                      IS MARRIAGE EQUALITY AN ISSUE OF GOVERNMENT SIZE … OR POWER?

                      They are one and the same, so both.

                      YOU EVEN MADE THE DUMBFUCK CLAIM THAT “GOVERNMENT POWER IS DEFINED BY HOW MUCH IS SPENDS”

                      It is. There is more than one kind of power, but ALL power comes from spending.

                      1) THEY SIMPLY REFUSE TO ISSUE A LICENSE.

                      Which takes money to put in place. And, the government already had the power to deny marriage licenses, they just usually don’t. Just because government can be more evil with the power they already have doesn’t mean that they don’t have the power. And that power came from money they spent issuing them in the first place.

                      2) YOU FORGOT YOUR OWN POINT – CHANGING “HOW MUCH” GOVERNMENT SPENDS — TO THAT GOVERNMENT SPENDS AT ALL.

                      Hardly. I can tell you that certain people want less government power (spending) while being completely for zero government power (spending).

                      Or … Extreme socon says it’s only a “minor” power because it only affects fucking fags)

                      This An-Cap thinks you’re funny, Hihn. Government ought to be abolished as it is twice an initiation of force.

                      Typical brainwashed Rothbardian/Paulista cult.

                      Typical Alinsky disciple. Can’t argue? Ridicule.

                      But, still, God Bless you Hihn!

      2. Paul didn’t have to endorse anyone, you know.

        1. Methinks you have a serious issue understanding cause and effect.

          Is marriage equality an issue of government size or government power?

  4. “the misnamed 2005 Constitution Restoration Act…would give Congress the power to remove any judge who refuses to recognize God as the source of America’s law”

    Would it have been so awful to remove Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the first “out” atheist on the Supreme Court?

    1. (not for atheism, but for trying to force his atheism into the law)

      1. The law should be atheistic, molded by reason and not mythology.

        1. Fine, so any law which mentions “Nature’s God” should be scrapped?

          But if we did that, we’d have to be British subjects again and we’d have to sing God Save the Queen.

          1. Lily Bulero|10.17.17 @ 9:09PM|#
            “Fine, so any law which mentions “Nature’s God” should be scrapped?”

            All of them, eddie.

            1. Scrap the Declaration of Independence?

              1. The Declaration of Independence is a historical document. It’s not a law to be repealed. You won’t find it anywhere in the US Code.

                1. You won’t find it anywhere in the US Code.

                  You’re looking in the wrong place. Learn the Constitution. First and Ninth Amendments.
                  Anything else?

                  1. Another handle, Hihn?

                    History of Hihn using other handles:

                    https://reason.com/blog/2016/12…..nt_6652623

                    Uses 3 (!) different handles, also uses his Hihn handle to respond to himself? 3 days after no one other than he or I were posting anymore.

                    https://reason.com/blog/2017/01…..nt_6730841

                    Says precisely the same thing using 2 different handles. Begins with a quote of mine “If the child is a living human”.

                    1. https://reason.com/blog/2017/02…..nt_6778904

                      Hihn uses another handle, gets caught by 3 different people, and continues to deny it.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt-conserv

                      Answers from the sock puppet meaning to answer from his “Hihn” account:

                      “He’s been stalking me for over a year”

                      His sock puppet hadn’t been around that long?

              2. Scrap the Declaration of Independence?

                Umm, where do you see “Nature’s God” in the Declaration?

                Do we believe you, money-grubbing televangelists and the Christian Taliban? …. or the first three Presidents and the unanimous US Senate in the 9th year of our Republic?

        2. The law should be atheistic, molded by reason and not mythology.

          I will slightly modify this and say that the law should be agnostic. Matters of religion (or lack thereof) and cosmology theory really have no place in the law. “The Law” shouldn’t claim to know the origin of humans because it’s irrelevant. We have rights as humans, because we’re humans, not because a god gave them to us or they exploded out of a big bang.

          1. We have rights as humans, because we’re humans

            Not that I disagree with you, but this is pretty much the worst argument ever. I hope you don’t use it in social circles.

            1. Why would he lower himself to their level anyhow? I know Ayn Rand pissed off a lot of people, but you’re the first one I’ve seen calling her stupid — since the Phil Donahue interview..

        3. Just FYI the moral reasoning behind the concept of natural rights, which is more or less the basis of most U.S. law, is derived from God.

          Huh, it’s almost like every last one of our founding fathers was a ‘theocrat’ by some of your own definitions. I guess that means we should go full secular and embrace socialism.

          /sarc

          1. Or we should go full secular in the same way France did, which I might add was more than happy to ban wearing certain religious garb in public.

            Ah, secularism. Is it really such a panacea? Perhaps not.

            1. Ah, secularism. Is it really such a panacea? Perhaps not.

              Ah, you managed to lie about both Christianity and secularism. Huckabee and Cruz will be SO proud of your efforts!.

          2. You’re a disgrace to Christianity … or have no clue what “theocrat” means … perhaps both.
            How dare you assume that ALL Christians MUST also commit to theocratic government?t

  5. Pope Francis’ outreach to the Left is totally working. /sarc

    “ROME – Women displaying their naked torsos, demanding legal and free abortion and recognition of prostitution as a legitimate trade, assaulted a Catholic cathedral in Argentina on Sunday, hurling a Molotov cocktail along with stones, bottles and fake used tampons….

    “According to several local news outlets, upon their arrival at the cathedral, the women participating in the ‘boob march’ used stones, tampons and pads with red paint, paint balloons, and even their own feces as projectiles.

    “They also set trashcans on fire and painted the walls of the nearby buildings near city hall. As a precaution, they put up fences protecting the religious building, targeted yearly by this rally.

    “The paintings include phrases such as “Death to the pope,” “castration for rapists,” “abort the macho,” “lesbianize yourself,” and “legalize cannabis.””

    1. I like some of their ideas.

      1. I hope you’re referring to legalized cannabis and castrating only *convicted* rapists in accordance with a law framed for that purpose.

        1. you forgot the boobs.

          1. Are you saying they HAVE boobs, or they ARE boobs?

        2. I hope you were joking about the castration thing. That’s a sick abomination, and a clear violation of unreasonable punishment.

          Also, I thought it was libertarian to think that prostitution is a legitimate thing?

          1. Unreasonable? No. Cruel and unusual, maybe. My own issue with it is the same as the death penalty. Sounds good in principle, but giving the government that power is wrong, because they will definitely fuck up.

            1. Any punishment that is applied wholesale instead of a case-by-case basis is not reasonable at all, and that’s aside from the obvious unconstitutionality of it, among other serious issues.

  6. Rand may not agree on any of the stuff Roy Moore passionately believes in, but they do share the same meaningless economic policy platitudes.

    1. If it’s meaningless who does your side find it so threatening?

      1. Meaninglessness often serves evil ends. Its point is to distract.

        1. That explains so much.

          1. Is this the beginning of a defense of Roy Moore, because I’m not interested.

            1. Shut the fuck up Hazel.

            2. Tony, go drink your Drano. Your life has no purpose and is tedious for the rest of us.

              1. So that’s a yes–you support theocratic asshole Roy Moore for senate.

        2. Thank you for your self incrimination.

        3. Tony inadvertently explains his motivation to post here.

    2. …but they do share the same meaningless economic policy platitudes.

      Says the supporter of minimum wage and the broken window fallacy.

      1. The stock market and corporate profits are at record highs, yet worker wages remain stagnant. What gives?

        1. Deficit spending is at least one culprit, yet I’ve never seen you endorse cutting spending. Odd, that.

          1. I suppose you think that makes sense, or are you just saying words and hoping some of them stick?

            1. Do you consider a 2.5% increase ‘stagnant’ and do you believe that 8 years of shitty economic policy might have something to do with it? This isn’t a new thing.

              The fed is devaluing your savings through deficit spending which eats you from the other end. Functionally a lot of people are ending up with a negative APR. I suppose that’s something you might be interested in now that someone you don’t like is in power, but it’s been that way long before Trump was a twinkle in America’s eye.

  7. Once again I am the most politically prescient poster on this blog’s comments. Only cucks scoffed at my declaration that Judge Roy Moore is much more of a “libertarian-Republican” than Reason-cover boy Senator Jeff Snowflake.

    1. “cucks”

      And to think I used to find that insult amusing.

      Thank you for curing me!

    2. Actual libertarians don’t exist.

      1. I hear the Niskanen Center is full of them.

      2. You said this before. It’s no more profound here and now than it was then and there. I consider myself a libertarian. Test me. I need to know if I’m real.

        1. “The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can’t. Not with out your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?”

          1. Because I’m paralyzed by the realization that helping might violate some obscure law, regulation, rule or other governmental restriction on my freedom to act on my conscience.

            1. WRONG! You’re supposed to say you were thinking of ways to make turtle soup for your orphans.

            2. WRONG! You’re supposed to say you were thinking of ways to make turtle soup for your orphans.

            3. To wit.

              1. Wow, that’s messed up.

                When someone named Kennedy gets into the water, trouble follows…and I bet they got punished more than Senator Kennedy did.

        2. Is there some kind of libertarian Touring test?

          1. I thought it was pot and messican butt sexy time.

            1. depends on the day … sometimes it is devotion to self destruction with bonus points if you take others with you.

      3. Actual libertarians don’t exist.

        (lol) We’re over 60% of the population … per a survey commissioned by — ever hear of Cato? — and conducted by a top independent pollster (Zogby Polling).

        “The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.””

        Educate yourself

        1. Actions speak louder than abstract answers to poll questions. 60% of t he popylation does not vote for that.

          1. 5% of the population does not vote for that.

            1. Even though Mr. Nolan seems like he might be Hihn’s progeny, he is correct here. I think voters are voting for it, they just keep getting duped by corrupt or self-serving politicians.

              1. I think voters are voting for it, they just keep getting duped by corrupt or self-serving politicians.

                Like the GOP 2018 budget?

                “REPEAL OBAMACARE”
                What have you got?”
                “REPEAL.”
                “Nothing else?”

            2. 5% of the population does not vote for that.

              It’s not on the ballot.
              Try again.

          2. 60% of t he popylation does not vote for that.

            It’s not on the ballot.
            You need a better excuse.

            1. If libertarians weren’t on the ballot, it’s because they weren’t willing to do the hard work of *getting* on the ballot.

              That said? I’m in California and in 2016 I voted libertarian in both the primary and presidential. So, uh, “you need a better excuse”.

              1. it’s because they weren’t willing to do the hard work of *getting* on the ballot.

                You agree with me … then flip.

                I voted libertarian in both the primary and presidential. So, uh, “you need a better excuse”

                So, uh, how an YOU voting have anything at all to do with 60% of the voters nationwide?

                Back to the point here. Do you agree or disagree that over 60% of the electorate would self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal? If you disagree, please link to an authoritative source Like I did! https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7002520

                And do you agree with the statement I challenged, that actual libertarians don’t even exist.?
                Are you one?

        2. Has an advocacy organization (like Cato) ever released a poll that didn’t affirm it’s own validity? It’s naive beyond rationality to believe that libertarians comprise 60% of the US populace. What we know to be true is that nearly all people, including socialists and Klansmen, hold some views that are libertarian, and that has always been the case.

          1. Has an advocacy organization (like Cato) ever released a poll that didn’t affirm it’s own validity?

            Umm, this one also found that the libertarian label was rejected by 91% of LIBERTARIANS. So your opening ad hominem is a massive failure. And THAT is why they began doing their own polling,

            It’s naive beyond rationality to believe that libertarians comprise 60% of the US populace.

            Failure #2! Reading ability,

            What we know to be true is that nearly all people, including socialists and Klansmen, hold some views that are libertarian, and that has always been the case.

            Strike three
            Read it again and get back to me.
            https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7002520

            If you had taken the time to “educate yourself” at the link I provided, you’d have avoided all three screwups . Like the survey was conducted by Zogby Polling — a top independent pollster.

        3. We can learn something about those Cato defines as libertarians from another Cato poll. Thirty-eight percent of “libertarian” respondents agreed that NFL players who didn’t stand for the national anthem should be fired. Only 15 percent of liberals and 36% of communitarian/populist respondents agreed with that. That gives us a feel for the sort of people Cato considers to be libertarians. Sure, a libertarian would agree that the NFL should be able to fire players, but this question is whether it should fire them for not respecting the nationalist anthem.

          http://www.newsweek.com/poll-w…..you-671279

          1. We can learn something about those Cato defines as libertarians from another Cato poll.

            You got this on wrong also,

            That gives us a feel for the sort of people Cato considers to be libertarian

            Not even mentioned. Go back and read what I said!
            https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7002520

            Sure, a libertarian would agree that the NFL should be able to fire players,

            “Sure” is totally bass ackwards to YOUR OWN LINK!

            60 percent of Libertarians, 85 percent of Liberals, and 62 percent of Communitarians (social conservatives who support larger government) all oppose punishing players

            Ooops! You (a) cherry-picked the wrong data and (b) misrepresented the poll question, and even (c) got the conclusion backwards!.

            This compounds your FAILURE to “educate yourself” at MY link. (I just proved reading yours.)
            And your FAILURE to even grasp my TWO-SENTENCE excerpt from the Cato/Zogby poll.

            You also FAILED to notice that the two surveys used totally different definitions of libertarian. Mine is stated. Yours never is. Your mind is made up, so was confused by the facts (that you got wrong for BOTH surveys!)

            Anything else?

  8. Wait, did someone actually explain how gay marriage has something to do with libertarianism?

    IIRC the main response here to that question was to borrow leftist tactics of ad hominem attacks and changing definitions of words.

    1. Equal protection under the law. It’s in the constitution.

      1. Yeah, but the gay-marriage part of equal protection was kind of concealed under the sofa cushions for over 100 years. During which time the only people crazy enough to say that the 14th Amendment required the recognition of gay marriage would be fanatic opponents of the 14th Amendment.

        1. And I’m not sure even then if any of the opponents was fanatical enough to make that claim.

        2. Well, gays were in the closet at that time and unable to dig in the couch for their rights. Now they have less governmental restriction on their lives and, feeling their oats I guess, want to live like the rest of their fellow citizens. It’s not fanatical to want the same rights as everyone else. Who’s flinging the ad homs here anyway?

          1. Seriously?

            You’d think that at the very least Walt Whitman would have noticed that the 14 Amendment protected folks like him. And would have called this fact to the attention of the public – “hey, the constitution won’t let you be anti-gay any more!”

            The 14th Amendment wasn’t meant to protect women against discrimination, either, which is why there was a 19th Amendment when it was decided to have equal suffrage.

            1. Or maybe we have a “living” constitution, i. e., a constitution which never needs to be amended by the people because the government (including courts) will amend it for us, giving the Constitution such new meanings as are relevant to a modern world?

              1. The living Constitution got us Jim Crow, interment of Japanese citizens in WW2, communists arrested during WW1 for handing out pamphlets, abortion “rights” made from whole cloth (I am pro-choice), and many other horrible decisions. Gay marriage today, why not polygymy tomorrow? Seriously, why not? Why does the 14th Amendment not protect a polygymous lifestyle? (I also voted in support of gay marriage, in two different states actually). Why does equal protection not give trans people a right to poop wherever they want? Or better yet, how come as a man I cannot use women’s bathrooms which are usually cleaner and nicer? Muh equal protection rights are trampled!

                9 people deciding when and when not to apply the Constitution is a form of dictatorship. Anyone with a brain realizes that.

                1. Why not polygamy today?

            2. From the 1st paragraph, “…Walt Whitman’s personal life suffered much at the hands of the American taboo against sex and homosexual love.”

              Why did he suffer? Because, from the same paragraph, “…America has sytematically(sic) mutilated its ideals…”

              I’m not going to read the rest of it because I’m not interested in Whitman or the author’s opinion on gay liberation.

              This is about being true to those “American ideals.” IMO arguments against gay marriage boil down to religious taboos. Surely we can agree that it is not the place for a government based on American ideals to enforce by law and threat of violence unto death.

              Of course the best option is for government to get out of the marriage business all together. Problem solved.

              1. “This is about being true to those “American ideals.””

                Ah, the “American ideals” clause in the constitution.

                Again, if there was such a clause added to the Constitution (disguised as an Equal Protection Clause), then it would have been in Whitman’s self-interest to alert the public – why would he have had to conceal anything (and it wasn’t effective concealment) if the Constitution had just been amended in his favor?

                “IMO arguments against gay marriage boil down to religious taboos.”

                Which is why atheist countries like Cuba are so tolerant of gays?

                1. I quote the link you provide and you try to make me look like a jerk? Fuck off, you aren’t being honest.

                  1. Weird, when you added the youtube link to your name, it didn’t appear in your other name.

                    1. It doesn’t appear to be retroactive, does it?

                    2. When I changed my name during the wood chipper incident I think my previous name was sticky to old comments.

                  2. The quote misses the point – how did such an oppressive anti-gay society make a pro-gay law which even Walt Whitman was too intimidated to point out to the people?

                    And I notice that you haven’t really responded to my other points, either.

                    1. (Just to be clear, my link never claimed that the 14th Amendment contained an “American ideals” clause – if you want to use the linked article for that purpose you don’t get to blame me)

        3. Equal protection is generalizable to “equal justice under law” – essentially the principle that the law should treat everyone equally. That a law should be the same for all citizens is easily recognizable as a libertarian principle.

        4. Yeah, but the gay-marriage part of equal protection was kind of concealed under the sofa cushions for over 100 years

          Your crowd said the same thing about school desegregation.
          Has the meaning of “equal” changed since the 14th was ratified?

          You “forgot” the 9th Amendment, which forbids ALL levels off government to “deny or disparage” ANY fundamental rights (those not enumerated in the Constitution) …. so, of course, THOSE rights are never listed (my emphasis)

          “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”.

          Can you list those “other”: rights for us? All of them?
          Your “revisionist” Constitution won’t get much traction from those who revere individual liberty,

      2. Of the laws, not under the law. Though it’s become a buzzword divorced from its original context at this point, so it’s understandable that it is misquoted so much.

        No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        How does marriage constitute protection?

        1. If the basic reasoning is that “the constitution mandates good results, recognizing gay marriage is good, therefore the constitution requires recognition of gay marriage” –

          Then you don’t even have to use the equal protection clause.

          Why not just say that denying recognition impairs the obligation of contracts, contrary to the Contracts Clause?

          Why not saying that denying recognition is a bill of attainder?

          All you have to so is make the assertion and call anyone who disagrees a hatey McHater.

        2. The purpose of that clause was to prevent states from passing laws that made it legal to murder or kidnap a black person, as a de facto substitute for slavery. It was geared toward preventing selective application of laws that actually protect people.

          So if Alabama made a law that said it was legal to beat up gays and lesbians, absolutely that would have been a 14th amendment violation. Marriage defined as a man and a woman? No way is that a violation. Same slippery ignoring of the actual text that the drug warriors do with the 4th amendment and the gun grabbers do with the 2nd amendment, but in this case Reason likes the result so it’s OK.

          1. That’s the thing – if the government gets to *add* rights to the Constitution, without going to the people with an amendment, it can also *subtract* rights from the constitution without an amendment – and this historically is a much more common scenario.

            (And I guess you could invoke the 9th Amendment, but that amendment refers to unenumerated rights “retained” presumably at the time of ratification, which would seem to indicate rights recognized as such in 1791, and gay activities weren’t recognized as such at that particular time.

          2. If that was their one and only purpose then they should have tightened the language considerably. There is no honest way to read that text and imagine it is limited to the circumstances you claim. I guess we’ll just have to suffer the unintended consequences of a poorly written amendment that somehow made it through the rigorous approval process.

        3. Just to clear the air…

          14A
          *All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*

          Okay, I’m not a lawyer, so pardon my failures at legalese and other niceties. We can play word games, or read the thing. If you don’t like equal protection, how about abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens? Does that work for you? Or am I being obtuse?

          1. I think you’re ignoring the implications of your way of reading equal protection.

            The law makes all sorts of distinctions.

            Age limits for driving, marriage, sex, and booze. People under and over the specifed age are treated differently.

            Speed limits. It’s legal to go the speed limit, but not legal to go above it. Discrimination!

            So by what principle do we tell what sorts of discrimination are legal?

            At the very least, the government must give protection to persons and property against private violence – without favoritism. So as mentioned above you can’t legalize the killing of gays by vigilantes.

            More controversially, I’m with those who look to the context and history of the amendment to see which forms of discrimination are presumed wrong – and race discrimination is the key evil to be presumed wrong, at least with regard to basic things like criminal punishments and the like. I know not everyone agrees with that approach, but I don’t see any other way to avoid turning the 14th Amendment into silly putty to be toyed with by interpreters and shaped however they want.

            In the specific case of gay-marriage recognition, there’s the question of equality of what?

            1. “Okay, I’m not a lawyer”

              It’s lawyers who screwed up the interpretation of the 14th Amendment – being a lawyer simply means you are familiar (hopefully) with how to argue in court – proper procedure, knowing the precedents, etc. Being a lawyer wouldn’t help you if the courts themselves go off the rails with their precedents.

              1. Every member of the public should educate themselves to be qualified to contribute to constitutional debates – you need a lawyer to defend your rights in court otherwise you’ll miss deadlines, use improper procedure, miss out on precedents, etc.

                But none of this means that the precedents and procedures in the courts are good or constitutional. So if you’re debating the constitution in some non-judicial forum, it’s not enough to say the Supreme Court said it, I believe it, that settles it. Fortunately, nobody is doing that here, that I know of.

            2. Equal opportunity to enjoy the rights and privileges that come with marriage in the US. Why is that so hard to understand?

              1. Sure, now define marriage.

                1. Having difficulty defining marriage? Check the 14th Amendment, I’m sure you’ll find the definition in there. /sarc

                  1. The perfect reflection of YHWH’s love for us?

                    The eternal union of two souls?

                    An occult method of wealth transfer?

                    Something gay people should never ever partake in?

                    1. Which of these definitions does the 14th Amendment endorse?

                      “Equal opportunity to enjoy the rights and privileges that come with marriage” simply begs the question – what is this “marriage” to whose benefits people have the right to equal access?

                    2. Bear in mind that you’re saying many state laws are unconstitutional for violating the definition of equal protection you gave.

                      You can’t just say that a definition of marriage that you don’t like violates the “Equal opportunity to enjoy the rights and privileges that come with marriage” – that’s circular.

                    3. Is this Lily Bulero a chatbot? Shallow understanding of subject matter and shallow responses. Not bad but not quite touring level

                    4. Gay couples want things that other couples get by the rights of being married. Like being able to visit each other in the hospital. LIke being able to cover their partner with their insurance. Etc. Government shouldn’t be involved in “marriage” period. These “partner” rights should be regulated outside of “marriage”.

                  2. What’s to stop people from making the same argument about the definition of “murder” not applying to black people (or for that matter alt-right’ers or whatever other target group of the mob in charge) as long as such killing is legalized? Serious question, I’m curious about this line of argument. Murder after all is defined as an “illegal” killing.

                    Anyway marriage recognition discriminates against single people. And social progressives want essentially the same govt violation of individual rights as social conservatives do, just to opposite ends. That’s why they add checkboxes for “genders” rather than simply removing them all.

              2. Not hard to understand; also not anywhere in the text of the amendment.

                1. Not hard to understand; also not anywhere in the text of the amendment.

                  Liberty-Equality DENIES the meaning of equality!
                  Only on the wacky right …

          2. I’m not a lawyer either, and it’s not a “word game”. If you’re going to cite texts as evidence you better cite them correctly.

            Changing the words, even subtly, changes the meaning of the text. I’ve seen leftists pull this shit so many times and get away with it, so I don’t give a damn if someone accuses me of nitpicking at this point. Maybe you were sincerely making a mistake, which would be fine, but your immediately attacking me when the inaccuracy was pointed out doesn’t bode well for that interpretation.

            “The law” means something completely different than “the laws”. In the former case the implication is that the entire body of law has to treat everyone equally. In the latter, those particular laws which protect people must protect everyone equally. HUGE difference.

            1. I surrender the point on misquoting. My apologies, I need to tighten up.

              You are taking a very narrow and inappropriate definition of protection. What does google say?

              “PROTECTION, government. That benefit or safety which the government affords to the citizens.”

              That benefit…

            2. This is 100% pure bullshit word games. The Equal Protection clause was never construed so narrowly as to cover *only* crimes against physical assault and the like. Not by its authors, not during the Reconstruction era… not even during the worst of the pro-Jim-Crow court.

          3. And even if the constitution did support that, that still doesn’t answer the question of how libertarianism supports gay marriage. Libertarianism isn’t defined by the constitution.

            1. Explain to me how libertarianism supports any form of government endorsed or supported marriage at all? I guess that’s the point that’s being missed.

              A marriage license is almost identical to a contract. Why would libertarians support the idea that two men or two women should be allowed to enter into a contract together, and thus be afforded all the privileges afforded to men/women combinations that enter into the same contract? Isn’t that all marriage equality is really about?

              1. The trouble is that the government confers certain tax privileges on man/woman contracts and not on woman/woman contracts or man/man contracts.
                The main court cases legalizing gay marriage are explicitly about this issue – cases where (for instance) the government claimed hundreds of thousands of dollars in inheritance taxes from one partner in a lesbian couple after the death of the other, where they would not claim those inheritance taxes had the spouse been a man.

                1. Sorry if my typo confused anyone. My rhetorical question should have read “Why wouldn’t libertarians support…”

              2. Libertarianism supports any contractual agreements between adults as long as there is no force involved.

                The problem with gay marriage was that gay married people didn’t get the tax and insurance incentives. The libertarian ideal would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether.

                In my opinion, we should have been much more clear on that, as the current situation is decidedly unequal for single people, as it was before. We chose the lesser of two evils in this case, just as we tend to do on marijuana.


                1. The problem with gay marriage was that gay married people didn’t get the tax and insurance incentives. The libertarian ideal would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether.

                  This really can’t be repeated often enough. As usual, we’re painted as being against gay marriage because we might think that it was a shitty precedent that just means anyone who wants to get married continues to be required to beg favors from the Central Government.

                  The fact of the matter is that marriage isn’t a secular practice for most cultures, including ours. Why is the government involved at all?

                  1. Your painted as being anti-gay because when faced with a depressingly long list of ways that legal marriage matters, from cradle to grave, your response is a glib “well abolish legal marriage”, whereupon you part yourself on the back and ignore that even libertarians have no serious proposal or plan for doing that.

                2. The libertarian ideal would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether.

                  Even libertarians have never been serious about that, so why should gay people have fought *your* losing battle?

        4. LOL. If you google “fourteenth amendment” the first graphic that comes up has the same misquotation.

          It’s probably being conflated with the SCOTUS motto (“Equal justice under the law”).

        5. How does marriage constitute protection?

          You don’t know what “equal” means?
          And why did you ignore all the other components in the 14tth? And the 9th entirely?

      3. Protection from what and whom?

      4. Why is polygamous marriage illegal if equal protection under the law was the justification? Note I’m not particularly against gay marriage, but I am against the Federal government being involved. There’s no good reason for the Government to dictate the parameters of a religious service or support one type of religious service over another through taxation policy.

  9. It appears that the issues Moore is good on are ones in which an added vote could make a difference, and the issues he’s wrong on are ones where the social progressives have won, and his voice will make no difference.

    Kind of like the local candidate for dog catcher telling me about his views on abortion. Who cares?

    1. This is one of the most sensible and succinct comments I’ve seen here.

    2. That’s a good way of putting it, and why I have zero reservations backing Moore.

      1. I have zero reservations backing Moore.

        Cause he’s a shameless statist who shits on the Constitution and all our founding principles?

        1. Moreso than the Democrat running against him? I call bullshit.

          1. Moreso than the Democrat running against him?

            Yep.

            I call bullshit.

            I call Christian Taliban. And loyal tribal hack.
            ,.

    3. Because he is not pure enough! Muh purity!

  10. The Libertarian Party of Alabama is running Ron Bishop as a write-in:
    http://www.al.com/news/index.s…..unces.html

    1. Why not just write in Donald Duck? Same net result.

    1. You failed.

  11. Roy Moore will walk into the Senate and be the 2nd or 3rd most libertarian there. Doherty isn’t too bright.

  12. Roy Moore will walk into the Senate and be the 2nd or 3rd most libertarian there. Doherty isn’t too bright.

    1. 3rd or 4th more likely. My money’s on 3rd so I don’t disagree.

      1. anyone who wants to install a theocracy isn’t remotely libertarian.

        1. And he will get to do that? no
          vote on that? no

          So that matters? not at all

          1. And he will get to do that? no

            Irrelevant and evasive,

            vote on that? no

            Irrelevant and evasive.,

            So that matters? not at all

            Irrelevant and evasive.
            It proves he’s no libertarian, which is the topic of this thread..

            Or do you claim that
            -It doesn’t matter if a libertarian is a neo-nazi because he’d never get to vote on it?
            -doesn’t matter if a libertarian is a white supremacist, because she’d never get to vote on it?

            Are there many fascists you make excuses for, or just the Christian Taliban ones?

            1. *whistle* Use of the “Christian Taliban” fallacy, 15 yards and loss of down.

              1. *whistle* Use of the “Christian Taliban” fallacy, 15 yards and loss of down.

                “whistle” — ejection from game for gross ignorance (of the Taliban) and gross violation (of the rules),

                Now tell us what confuses you when BOTH Muslims (some) and Christians (some) demand a theocratic state .. which is forbidden in THIS country.

    2. Moore’s new claim, that kneeling for the anthem is illegal, casts doubt on your claim.

    3. Doherty isn’t too bright

      SOMEBODY is kinda dumb!.
      Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal … only since 1969,

  13. “homosexual conduct is… a crime against nature”

    A few weeks ago, I saw a spider wasp attack a tarantula outside my house. It stabbed the tarantula repeatedly, over the course of 5 minutes, in the face with its stinger, until it was paralyzed, then began dragging the immobilized body into the bushes, where it would then bury it, implant its eggs in it, and leave it to be slowly devoured from the inside out by its young before they burst out as adults, go looking for tarantulas of their own and start the cycle all over again.

    But gay sex? Nature just won’t stand for THAT shit.

    1. If we humans simply followed the dictates, or “laws”, of nature, we’d still be hunters and gathers, like the four-legged animals. We’d have never become farmers. We’d also never fight diseases, and thus never developed medicine.

    2. “Something about a bunch of guys alone together in the woods… seems kinda gay.” — Bart Simpson, The Simpsons “Homer’s Phobia” (1997), when Homer, Moe and Barney take Bart hunting.

  14. The apologia being offered, that Roy Moore’s noxious views wouldn’t matter because he’d never get a vote on that sort of thing, doesn’t make much sense.

    Senators wield huge influence over judicial appointments in their state. Immigration policy remains a perennial topic of possible legislative action, even moreso with the Muslim Ban fight ongoing. It wasn’t that long ago a flag-burning amendment failed by just one vote in the Senate. Various issues surrounding religious freedom crop up in lots of different areas. Appropriations bills often include horse-trading where money gets thrown at one Senator’s pet causes. Trade policy in one form or another comes up all the time, with protectionist Senators trying to gum up the works and often getting their way. Sentencing reform and criminal justice reform is another topic likely to be the subject of votes in the near future. Then there’s the Senate’s role in executive-branch appointments. All of which could be compounded by Moore getting relevant committee assignments.

    The argument really being made is that all that stuff just isn’t important. That they don’t matter and libertarians who are generally on the other side of those issues, just shouldn’t care about them.

    But it’s not the case that the Senate doesn’t deal with those topics, or that Moore couldn’t have any negative influence on these policy areas. That’s nonsense. Of course he could, and would. Don’t try to tell me these aren’t things the Senate has any role in.

    1. Please stay home until the ideal candidate, the one you agree with completely, is available.

      This is not really sarc, truly I hope you stay home.

      1. Cheap meaningless strawman. I’m not asking for fucking “ideal,” I’m asking for just “not an awful, hateful authoritarian worse than his Democratic opponent.”

        1. BZZT, assuming what you want to prove, namely that he’s worse than the Democrat.

          C’mon, you don’t get to throw bullshit like that out there without getting called on it.

          1. C’mon, you don’t get to throw bullshit like that out there without getting called on it

            The bullshit is YOURS, Typical of the Christian Taliban to demand a New Inquisition.
            Umm, I already corrected your MASSIVE ignorance of “Taliban” here
            https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7005030

      2. This is not really sarc, truly I hope you stay home.

        We saw your authoritarian statism here,
        https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7002604

        Now YOU decide who has voting rights! Typical Moore idolator.

  15. This is Reason acting like progressives and insisting on a libertarian purity test for anyone Rand Paul endorses. Sure, he agrees with 90% of what Reason claims to believe but he finds gays to be icky* (HOMOPHOBE! BIGGOT!) and thinks the 10 Commandments should have stayed before a court house (RELIGIOUS ZEALOT! BLURGH!!).

    No candidate is perfect, and if you think one is, check yourself and quit the hero worship.

    *Any constitutionalist should be 100% against the Ogberfell decision. Many writers at Reason have no issue with it because they are as unprincipled as many politicians they often complain about.

    1. “that he is the author of the misnamed 2005 Constitution Restoration Act that would give Congress the power to remove any judge who refuses to recognize God as the source of America’s law. The bill also seeks to limit the power of the Supreme Court to overrule or punish any state official or judge acting in the name of God’s law and, instead, would impeach the judges who take on such cases”

      “Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated.”

      Come on… These two positions are so un-libertarian that I would be upset if Reason didn’t point out the hypocrisy and political expediency of this endorsement.

      1. Problem is Reason spends far too much of its time being social justice warriors, and it consistently does so by calling for the government to apply the boot to all of our necks equally, rather than taking the libertarian stance, or focusing on cases and issues that reduce government power and increase liberty for all.

        Roy Moore, while sure, he is a dick on gay marriage, is a net gain for liberty, especially when compared to his Democratic rival.

        1. Problem is Reason spends far too much of its time being social justice warriors, and it consistently does so by calling for the government to apply the boot to all of our necks equally

          This article has nothing to do with your claim. This article is simply pointing out that this guy is not a friend to liberty, and therefore it doesn’t make sense to get a Paul endorsement. If this were about gay marriage, I’m sure that Reason would take the libertarian stance that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place.

          Roy Moore, while sure, he is a dick on gay marriage, is a net gain for liberty, especially when compared to his Democratic rival.

          This is the reason, the 2-party system has a stranglehold over this country.

          1. Before being scolded, I apologize for the superfluous comma.

        2. Yes, the Democratic rival who sought justice for black girls burnt in a church fire decades after is a net negative for liberty, whereas the theocracy advocate who declared that black athletes kneeling at anthem time are breaking the law.

          You are not just a fucking moron, you are a soulless one

          1. “It describes how Paint Thinner argues”

            *ding*

            “What is ‘cherry-picking’, Alex?”

            1. “ding”

              “Who’s the Christian Taliban and brainwashed tribal hack, Alex?”

              Proof: https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7005034

        3. Roy Moore, while sure, he is a dick on gay marriage, is a net gain for liberty, especially when compared to his Democratic rival.

          Cool story.

          When do I get to say “this candidate literally wants to throw you in jail, and won’t rule out the death penalty. But that’s a cost in willing to accept” without you whining?

      2. But they will never come up.

        Moore’s never going to get to vote to install a theocracy

        But if he did, this is what it

        wants….

        “Lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending…the reduction of taxes at all levels…”

        feels that the….

        “Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, States’ Rights, and our Bill of Rights are integral parts of the Constitution which we must observe..”

        insists that….

        “We do not need socialized medicine which will ultimately lead to loss of quality and affordability of heath care, as well as a loss of access to the latest medical technology….”

        and….

        “We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President…The federal government should not hamper the educational systems of the states as there is no authority for federal involvement under the Constitution….Competition between the states and freedom of various educational structures should be available to parents who are charged with the responsibility to teach their children…We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated and stand with allies to protect and preserve our national security…..Respect for our strength is the best defense. “Walk softly and carry a big stick” is and should be our guide.”

        All of that sounds so libertarian that you might wanna start asking yourself if maybe, just maybe, the lefties telling you that Moore wants an American Taliban might be trying to sell you something.

        1. Yes, some facts.

          Because this is what the liberty lover said today, you moron:
          http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…..ng-the-law

          1. Here, you need to read this again–

            All of that sounds so libertarian that you might wanna start asking yourself if maybe, just maybe, the lefties telling you that Moore wants an American Taliban might be trying to sell you something.

            It won’t help, you’re too much of an idiot.

            1. All of that sounds so libertarian

              Umm, libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal … since 1969.
              Anything else?

            2. He’s been huffing too much of his username.

              1. He’s been huffing too much of his username.

                Says the loyal Christian Taliban … lobbing tribal insults all down the page. The authoritarian right
                https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7005034

    2. Libertarians aren’t strict constitutionalists.
      The constitution is only good insofar as it protects individual liberty.
      It is an imperfect instantiation of certain principles, like the idea that the laws should be the same for everyone, which the Ogberfell decision is consistent with. Libertarians are more interested in upholding those general principles than in the letter of the constitution.

      1. ^ This.

        The constitution at one time said that alcohol should be illegal and that slaves count as 3/5 of a person (or recognized slavery at all). These are hardly libertarian positions, and just prove that the Constitution isn’t an infallible document.

      2. Yes, because the concept of a living constitution espoused by Woodrow Wilson has had nothing but great consequences.

        You’re not wrong, but the alternative is demonstrably worse.

        1. It wasn’t Wilson!

      3. Some day such libertarians will show up. Or at least not be running as Republicans.

        1. Some day the Sun will go nova and destroy all life on Earth, too.

          1. Some day the Sun will go nova and destroy all life on Earth, too.

            AFTER we join together in squashing the authoritarian right!

            Left-Right = Zero

      4. Every libertarian should read Sheldon Richman’s recent book on the creation and purpose of the constitution. It’s called “America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited.”

    3. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…..ng-the-law

      Go fuck yourself.

    4. Sure, he agrees with 90% of what Reason claims to believe

      How many moons circle your planet?.

  16. I don’t have an issue with Rand Paul being himself. He does not misrepresent himself. The folks that seem to be intolerant of diversity are Libertarians that expect him to live up to their ideals.

    1. Ron Paul has a bit of a sketchy history on racial and sexual preference bigotry being ok as long as it’s only at the state level. This endorsement by Rand makes you question how far the apple actually fell from the tree.

    2. The folks that seem to be intolerant of diversity are Libertarians that expect him to live up to their ideals.

      Only if he claims to be libertarian.
      And it’s not just progressives whining about faux diversity.
      ,

  17. A major reason Roy Moore won the primary is that his opponent, Luther Strange, was tainted from the start. Strange was appointed by Governor Bentley to fill the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions. Before that, Strange was the state attorney general, elected to that position in 2010 and 2014. But when he took the Senate appointment, his office was investigating the Governor, who later resigned. Accepting an appointment from someone you’re investigating is going to leave a big, bad mark.

    Alabama voters have already rejected Moore twice in statewide elections, both of them Governor’s races. Moore once finished fourth in the GOP primacy. But if his Democratic opponent in the Senate general election isn’t formidable, Moore may win that race, just like he won the primary, by default.

    Yes, Moore, the former “high priest” chief justice of Alabama (defrocked twice), is a religious nut. If elected, he’ll be the 21st century’s Jesse Helms. On the bright side, though, Moore is already 70, which is a bit old (Helms was only 51 when he was first elected to the Senate). Plus, as a junior Senator, he won’t be in any position to steer legislation through the Senate. Like any member of Congress, he’ll be able to introduce any bills he wants to, no matter how crazy or unconstitutional they are, but they won’t go anywhere without support from the leadership.

    1. Moore won his most recent statewide election, the 2012 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court race, by less than a 4% margin. Massachusetts liberal Republican Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama by 22% in Alabama that very same day.

  18. The social status-quo conservatives, in the name of traditional values, want to run people’s private lives while the welfare-state liberals want to run everything else.

    1. I’ll take the welfare-state liberals any day. Because they are clear: want to tax the rich to help the poor. Just are not very good at it.

      1. Umm, the rich already subsidize half the total income tax burden for the core middle class ($40-100,000)
        They’re also not very good at thinking — just like the extreme socons.

        Left – Right = Zero.

  19. “he is the author of the misnamed 2005 Constitution Restoration Act that would give Congress the power to remove any judge who refuses to recognize God as the source of America’s law. The bill also seeks to limit the power of the Supreme Court to overrule or punish any state official or judge acting in the name of God’s law and, instead, would impeach the judges who take on such cases”

    Now wait a minute, are you sure that is what the law actually says?

    Because it looks to me more like the law wants to block the govt from suing or punishing any member of govt for being all religious in their governing. I mean that fits the title and all, “restoring religious freedom” (to judges). as opposed to your theory that he’s just a ranting crazy man making non sequiturs.

    1. Are you sure that is what the law actually says?

      That’s what it said.
      You MAY be equally misinformed on what “religious freedom” is.
      It’s Freedom OF and Freedom FROM, which is how liberty works.

  20. Well, I’m ready to stop calling Rand a libertarian now.

    You’d think he learned his lesson after voting to confirm Joykiller Jeff.

    1. Well, there is hope for you. It took you this long to recognize that he is a Republican. The R at the end of his name was not a hint, obviously

  21. I live in Alabama. A lot, and I mean A LOT, of Republicans, even self-identified Christian conservatives, do not like Roy Moore and probably will not vote for him for anything. I’m not saying they’ll vote for the D, but it’s likely the election will have low turnout. If the D’s can get their turnout up, it’s game over for Roy Moore.

    He has a very solid and energized base, but the delta between his floor and ceiling is tight. The fact that national level conservatives are going out of their way to endorse him spells trouble for his campaign. If he loses, the Republican Senate leaders only have themselves to blame. They torpedoed the one candidate (Mo Brooks) who likely could have beaten any D and didn’t have the stain of the Luv Guv scandal like Luther Strange.

  22. Rand Paul is a Republican. He has endorsed a fellow Republican, because he cherishes the values of Roy Moore who wants Christianity to be the law of the land.

    Libertarians who are outraged by this are morons.

  23. ” Moore, as he declared from the bench in the that 2002 case, believes all American homosexuals who have a sex life in line with their preferences are for that very reason criminals.”

    A lot of Catholic priests should be up in arms over that.

  24. The bottom line here is that some folks, like Roy Moore, simply don’t like LGBT individuals. But rather that just admit to their prejudices or dislikes — a supporter of South Africa’s apartheid in the early 1990s simply said on CNN “we don’t like black people” — they use religion to justify their prejudices by wrapping them up in cherry-picked bible verses and thus putting those prejudices above question. This is nothing new. Before their battles against the “LGBT agenda”, social status-quo conservatives used religion to support Jim Crow, anti-Semitism, Prohibition, banning the teaching of evolution, anti-Mormonism, anti-Catholicism, and slavery. They always portrayed themselves as the victims of an oncoming “demonic” onslaught. They didn’t debate with their opponents, but instead demonized them.

    Don’t want to co-exist or live among people of different religions or cultures? There’s a bible verse for that. Check out Exodus and Deuteronomy. The Hebrews, before their mythical conquest of Canaan, were prohibited from mixing with peoples of other beliefs or even making treaties with the Canaanites. Entire peoples, including women and children, were wiped out, according to those stories. (That’s a verse for genocide.) Go to Leviticus for warnings against gay relationships (it doesn’t say anything about lesbian relationships). Check out Deuteronomy for rules against transgender individuals.

  25. Nothing irritates social conservatives than being reminded of more inclusive bible verses, like love thy neighbor, judge not lest ye be judged, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I grew up in the South as a Lutheran in the 70s and 80s. These were the ideals preached at my church. No fire and brimstone.

  26. Polls indicate that Americans have become more accepting in recent years of differences on matters of sexual orientation and gender identity, just like they became more accepting of differences of race and religion in prior decades. (Race relation may not be perfect, but we’ve come a long way since the 60s.) This acceptance is quite high among younger people, even those who are religious. It’s little wonder that the social status-quo conservatives — mostly the old generations, like Roy Moore — are losing the culture wars they start.

  27. The Alabama general is a microcosm of 2016. No good candidate. In this case I’ll go with Jones. I disagree with him on many points, but he hasn’t repeatedly shown that he thinks he’s above the law.

  28. Paul was anticipating Moore’s declaration that kneeling for the national anthem is illegal.

    1. Rand is clearly crazy enough. Has anyone actually kneeled for the anthem?
      I know the fascists right hates free speech — as does the fascist left. Tat;s what fascism demands of it’s tribe.,

      1. Moore would like to throw those kneeling football player in jail, not just fire them.

        1. He’d probably hang them!

  29. I would certainly support Moore’s candidacy over the candidate the Democrats put up to oppose him. In the Declaration, it states that we our endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights; so the Declaration itself states that rights are inalienable because they come from God. Some of our founders were deists or closet atheists that actually interpreted “God” as nature–but the key point is that our founders opposed the point-of-view that rights come from government representatives, who have the authority to create rights and take them away. From this perspective, Moore is on the libertarian side: rights are inalienable because they do not come from man; the Democrats aka the socialists, communists and statists believe that rights do come from man and are therefore alienable. I oppose his stance on homosexuality, but I have yet to see the perfect candidate that agrees with me on every position.

  30. I would certainly support Moore’s candidacy over the candidate the Democrats put up to oppose him.

    Tribalism — based on ignorance — and shitting on the Constitution, just like progs but for a “more noble” excuse. (lol)

    In the Declaration, it states that we our endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights; so the Declaration itself states that rights are inalienable because they come from God

    1) Bullshit.
    2) Moore FUCKS unalienable rights, among the very worst in America …. but he’s not a Democrat!
    3) The Declaration is not the Constitution. The 9th Amendment FORBIDS his abuses

    the Democrats aka the socialists, communists and statists believe that rights do come from man and are therefore alienable

    Some Christians are beyond shame. Moore is a theocrat .. and the Founders mandated Separation. (oops).

    No (yawn), the words DO NOT have to be explicitly stated. That’s what JEFFERSON said the Founders intended …
    when asked by Connecticut Baptists who feared persecution by the state! So … I have the first THREE Presidents and a UNANIMOUS US Senate in the 9th year of our Republic. You have … absolutely nothing (except your desire for a New Inquisition)

    Anything else?

    1. Separation of church and state is not in the fucking Constitution, you bloody idiot.

      Thomas Jefferson was off being Ambassador to France when the 1st Amendment passed the First Congress.

      If you didn’t have a room-temperature IQ (in Celsius) you’d know all that.

      1. I DID say — “Some Christians are beyond shame(!)”

        Separation of church and state is not in the fucking Constitution, you bloody idiot

        Do I believe a trash-mouth bully? Or “the THREE Presidents and a UNANIMOUS US Senate in the 9th year of our Republic?”

        Thomas Jefferson was off being Ambassador to France when the 1st Amendment passed the First Congress.

        Where was your preacher at the time? (Or whomever’s exploiting your faith).
        Do YOU have a source. Anything at all? Or just rage?

        If you didn’t have a room-temperature IQ (in Celsius) you’d know all that.Says the guy or gal … WHO CANNOT READl

        Pay attention. The FIRST three Presidents:.
        1) The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated and finalized under Washington, in the closing months of his term.
        2) Signed by Adams early in his.
        3) Jefferson was the third President

        … and a UNANIMOUS Senate (Ratified the Treaty.)

        THAT was the common belief at the time.

        From Article 11 “”As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,”
        Library of Congress

        Anything else?

    2. You completely misunderstood my position: I am a philosophical person with an M.A. in philosophy, not a religious person; and I don’t advocate theocracy, and certainly not another inquisition. I was merely making a philosophical point regarding the origin of rights. The Democrats and other statists believe that rights are created by man and thus can also be destroyed by man. In other words, we can be temporarily granted free speech, but this right can be taken away if it goes against the “public interest.” My view is that rights are natural and come from the very nature of man (not the dictates of particular men) and therefore can never be taken away. Moore’s view is that rights come from God and therefore can never be taken away. My view is different from Moore’s, but it is similar in essentials. That is why I consider Moore an ally, and the Democratics and other statists as intellectual enemies who want to form strong central governments in order to control human lives that should be left free. Perhaps Moore is inconsistent on this issue–that is not shocking; but that is better than being consistently against inalienable rights.

  31. You completely misunderstood my position:

    This shows I nailed it.

    I am a philosophical person with an M.A. in philosophy,

    Yet you repeat the arguments of a purely tribal partisan hack..

    and I don’t advocate theocracy,

    Merely condone and excuse it?

    I was merely making a philosophical point regarding the origin of rights.

    It was blatantly partisan … and FALSELY attributed to the Declaration.

    The Democrats and other statists believe that rights are created by man and thus can also be destroyed by man.

    Shameful nonsense. What about Republican statists … like Moore? BLATANTLY statist, DEFIES unalienable rights endowed by a Creator. THIS is the tribal bigotry that I saw correctly.

    My view is that rights are natural and come from the very nature of man

    You said the opposite, even misquoting the Declaration!.

    (not the dictates of particular men)

    Unless it’s a Bible-thumper running against a damn Democrat,

    Moore’s view is that rights come from God and therefore can never be taken away.

    AND YOU’RE A PHILOSOPHY MAJOR?? Hair-splitting — instead takeaways, he REFUSES to acknowledge them — placing his own will above the Will of Almighty God, like so many on the extreme.right,

    Thanks for confirming that I was precisely correct on your meaning.

    1. I am sure that you don’t have a background in philosophy. If we take away your ad hominem attacks, there is nothing left. It is amazing to me that after using so many words, I STILL DON’T EVEN KNOW YOUR POSITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. How do YOU justify them? I see that you are an angry and hostile person, but I do need to know where you stand on this issue to have an intelligible conversation with you.

      1. (boldface and tone in response to aggression and cyber-bullying)

        I am sure that you don’t have a background in philosophy.

        (sigh) THAT pathetic fallacy is known as “Appeal to Authority, philosopher. My philosophy was only a minor …. but you CONTINUE making public fool of yourself.

        The rest, also pathetic, is a string of unsupported ad hominem fallacies and hissy fits by an already. known liar.

        I STILL DON’T EVEN KNOW YOUR POSITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

        ONE MORE TIME FOR THE FAUX PHILOSOPHER
        1) What does that gave to do with your BLATANT LIE (and misquoting) about the Declaration?
        2) And mindless bigotry about “Democrats and other statists” … while you ALSO ignore Republican statists?

        How do YOU justify them?

        SAME AS THE JEFFERSON YOU LIED ABOUT. …. IT’S CALLED NATURAL LAW …. AS TAUGHT EVEN IN HIGH SCHOOL, PHILOSOPHY MAJOR (SNEER)

        I see that you are an angry and hostile person,

        PATHETIC
        i documented EVERYTHING, punk. (Purported philosophy major also ignorant of ad hominem fallacy vs SUPPORTED ARGUMENT!)

        but I do need to know where you stand on this issue to have an intelligible conversation with you

        Don’t flatter yourself, Sluggo. You’re WAY out of your league.
        PROVEN by your REFUSAL to defend a single one of your shameful lies.

        But thanks for confirming what I sad — that I DID nail one!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.