Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Libertarian Leader: We Do Not Support Rand Paul

June 1, 2010 by  

Libertarian leader: We do not support Rand PaulThe vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky said last week that he strongly condemns the views of GOP candidate Rand Paul and suggested that the conservative group may run a competing candidate in the state’s upcoming Senatorial election.

Joshua Koch said that Paul—son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul— boasts views that drastically differ from the fiscal conservative party’s ideology, including his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, The Associated Press (AP) reports. Koch also took issue with Paul’s criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

"The reason why we would even consider running somebody in this race is because we’re not going to let Rand determine what a Libertarian stands for," he said. "I’m here to say Rand does not have the Libertarian ideology."

Meanwhile, Ken Moellman, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky, disavowed on Thursday the statements made by Koch, stating that they were "not an official communication or an official stance," according to

David Adams, Paul’s campaign spokesman, said that he is not concerned with the possibility of the GOP nominee having to face a second challenger.

"If someone wants to split up Kentucky’s non-conservative vote more than it already is, that’s okay with me," he told the AP.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Libertarian Leader: We Do Not Support Rand Paul”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Eric Dondero

    Your headline is entirely mis-leading. It should have read, Kentucky Libertarian Party disavows comments by errant Vice-Chair. The entire KYLP is pissed off at this guy. He’s been severely reprimanded. He went off on a tangent without authorization.

    I’d ask that you correct the record.

    Eric Dondero, Publisher

    • Liberty Pimp

      This guy will likely lose his title. Will the media follow up when that happens? If was the LP in my state we would can him ASAP. This guy should have been speaking out against Badnarik and Harry Browne too because they held the same position as Rand and his Dad on this issue and it has nothing to do with race.

      • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Randy

        Au contraire, exactly what Koch said about Rand Paul’s views on abortion, same sex marriage, and private business owners rights, not with-standing racism, on the 1964 Civil Rights Act will get him elected in Kentucky. So let Koch keep mouthing off, its nothing but free ‘Political Advertisement’ for Rand. So you left leaning media please keep covering Koch and reporting what he is saying.

  • JC

    Rand may be trying to garner the support of the conservative right in KY, but that is NOT necessarily a reflection on Libertarians. A true Libertarian is a lot more centrist than the media or far left would have you believe. “Personal Freedom and Individual Responsibility” does not take a position on what a woman can or can not do with her own body. As for civil rights? They should be enshrined as equal for all…in fact I think they already were…

    • Pathfinder

      As a Libertarian, I am opposed to the murder of innocent life. A woman’s own body ends at the placenta. After that we are talking about the body of an innocent child. If you can compel a man to support a child for 18 years; then you should be able to compel a woman to support a child for only 9 months. It is time to stop dead beat moms.

      • cvw

        Yes, finally someone gets it right on the mark. Love that term deadbeat mom (maybe they should publish those names in the newspapers along side the indebted) although I know plenty that are against abortion that qualify too!

      • JC

        So as a Libertarian you feel you should have the authority to impose your will on others? That’s not a Libertarian in my mind.
        If that is your religious belief so be it, but you have no right whatever to impose your self or your will on anyone.
        Perhaps “libertarian” isn’t quite what you mean to call yourself?

        • BrokenCrystal

          JC, So you think it’s OK to imposing your will on an innocent child?

          • BrokenCrystal

            Yea, I had made a typo… get over it. ;-)

          • JC

            I’m not imposing my will on anything or anybody…that’s my point.

  • spoonerist

    Abortion, war, drugs, tolerance vs. approval of homosexual activity, and changing the definition of marriage are issues that splits the memeberships of all three major parties. Those issues, along with “civil rights” are misunderstood by most people because there really hasn’t been an honest and comprehensive dialogue about them; the national discussion has been mostly controlled by the mainstream media to keep the issues clouded and not resolved. It is errant for someone to try to label Rand Paul as not being libertarian because of his specific stands on these issues.

  • chris

    I don’t consider Rand Paul a Libertarian….considering how much he states he doesn’t want government to be in our lives, tell us how to live or what to do….then he states he wants the government to tell us who we can marry, and what a woman must do with her body. As George Carlin once put it when talking about the republicans: They don’t want government in their lives, but they don’t mind government being in a woman’s uterus!

    This issue involving the Libertarian Party of Kentucky shows just how much like the 2 major parties the libertarians are. Rand claims himself to be a libertarian, like his pappy….despite them both being republicans. Kind of like saying that you are an independent while having that “D” by your name (Lieberman-I’m looking at you). They reprimand this dude for speaking his mind, yet tell everyone they aren’t like the other parties? The party at large is willing to tie to the popularity of Rand Paul, despite his not being an actual libertarian? Sounds like Democrats and Republicans to me….endorsing a candidate based on what he says he is rather than the actual definition of the words he tries to identify himself as.

    So, tell me….how can one be for less government and then in the next breath tell us that he wants the government to tell us how to live? Sounds hypocritical to me.

    • Pathfinder

      We want limited government: NOT anarchy. There is a child’s innocent life at stake. The same women who want the power to murder unborn children, think government should have the power to force men to support their children. If government can force a man to support a child for 18 years; then it can certainly force a woman to support a child for only 9 months. Stop deadbeat moms.

      • DaveH

        That innocent life of which you speak may be the mother’s innocent life upon childbirth. Who are we to make that decision for her?
        Also, too many children now are being born to unloving parents who turn them into wreaks of human beings. Do we need to force more of that?
        And where does your “loving” control end? Every egg produced by a woman is a potential human life. Do we require that all eggs be fertilized? Before you accuse me of being ridiculous, there are lots of religious people who believe that birth control is wrong for just that reason.
        Please butt out of other peoples’ life decisions.

        • spoonerist

          You are wrong on this one, Dave. The last thing we Libertarians should want would be for GOVERNMENT to be the segment of society that decides when life begins, when life ends, or the definition of marriage. Marriage has been defined by overall society, not by government, for centuries, and to let government redefine it now would be Orwellian and allow government carte blanche to do anything it (corrupt leaders) wants. As science and society evolve, the knowledge of what life is gradually becomes more refined, and eventually society as a whole, not government, will make the right decision about when life begins. Right now, it logically appears that a new human life begins when the two haploid sets of chromosomes come together to make a new and unique diploid cell, and until we can do better scientifically in understanding, that should be recognized as the beginning of a new life. Any arbitrary decision about “when the ‘fetus’ is viable is just as much crap as the previously pagan decision that life only begins after emergence (birth). Since Libertarians value the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, we should be pro-life in the true sense. We agree that a person’s (mother’s) body belongs just to that person, but sometimes nature burdens (or blesses) us with responsibility, such as the responsibility of motherhood. As far as “choice” is concerned, the real choice comes nine months before the birth. And don’t buy into the crap about “except in the case of rape, etc.” Bad things happen to good people many times, and this is one of those possibilities. But the remedy is not killing an innocent human. It is to defend the rights of the victim by somehow obtaining justice, even if it means killing the guilty party (rapist). That might not restore the rights of the victim, but there is no excuse for allowing one injustice to invoke another, so the mother-to-be must unfortunately continue to be a victim for the nine months. Sad, but true. So, execute the rapist, not the baby.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            I disagree with you on one part. the mother should not have to forfeit her life if the pregnancy will kill her. there are times this can’t be seen in advance. therefore the mother could not have known at conception. things like a tubal pregnancy will kill both the mother AND child. Why let that happen when at least the mother can be saved? I find the life of the mother, incest, and rape to be the only exceptions!

    • father24girls

      It’s called “limited government” not absent of government. As every other party there are extreme right and left. Libertarians are no different! From the no gevernment to a little more thanm I’d like government Libers are all over the place. And you can’t say “you’re not a libertarian” just because my specific ideals don’t match your own. I for example believe that human life is sacred and every Living American has the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To me that INCLUDES those LIVING in their mothers womb. If it takes an act of Congress to protrect their rights than that is the most pure act of government. A womans right to her body ended when she said, yeah, come on in! And if you wanna bring up rape and incest go for it! You still have TWO sets of rights to protect and neither one trumps the others.A cunundrum to be sure but don’t extol the virtues of a non intrusive government if that does not allow it to protect my rights!

      • Pathfinder

        The fact that a child is in a woman’s womb does not mean killing the child is “doing what she wishes with her own body”. The woman’s body ends at the placenta. After that there is another body that belongs to the child. When a man does not want to support a child, and wants to do with his own earnings as he wishes; feminists call him a “deadbeat” dad. Well, if it is OK for government to force a man to support a child for 18 years; then it should be correct to force a woman to support her child for only 9 months. Stop the “deadbeat” MOMS.

        In cases of rape: lets execute the rapist and spare the innocent child. Stop punishing innocent children for the crimes of their fathers.

        • sheldon

          A woman wants an abortion, it’s her body… it should her choice. But Pro-Lifers, forcing their views on others want to force “deadbeat moms” to carry the child to full term. This “deadbeat mom” doesn’t care (or wants revenge) so she drinks and smokes and eats fast food for nine months. You “pro-life meddling” has just created a child with an addiction or the lifelong impairment of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Was that really what you wanted?
          What’s your next step Pro-Lifers? Are you going to institutionalize all pregnant mothers to ensure that they eat properly and deny them access to alcohol and illegal drugs for seven, eight or nine months? How far are you willing to intrude into other people’s (women’s) lives? That’s the next step isn’t it? Imprison expecting mothers so their babies can’t be born with FAS, or STDs or addicted to drugs. Not only would all babies be born, more of them would be born healthy. Isn’t that a good idea and a worthy objective? How far are you willing to go?

          • Vicki

            As was pointed out above my rights to my body are mine. However when I become pregnant there is now another human body living in close proximity to me. If that body were outside and I chose to drink to much and fail to take care of it we would call it “child endangerment” If that body is inside and I chose to drink to much why is that NOT “child endangerment”?

          • sheldon

            Vicki… point #1… nice spin, but there is a fundamental difference between “close proximity” and having something INSIDE of you. You’re playing word games to obfuscate the debate.
            Point #2… so you think a pregnant mother who drinks and/or takes drugs should be charged with “child endangerment”? If you’re truly interested in a healthy baby, wouldn’t you charge the mother with child endangerment if she didn’t eat a proper diet or didn’t take vitamins… or exercised? Can you imagine what the liberals would do? Pregnant women must report to a healthcare facility where they all will be placed on a strict diet and exercise regimen to protect the unborn.
            In my opinion, some Pro-Life views seem to de-humanize women when they become pregnant and view them as nothing more than “gestation vessels”.

          • Robin, Arcadia, IN

            Sheldon… You are obviously not a religious man. Abortion is murder. And I believe that a woman who is pregnant has given up her rights as she once knew them. There is always going to be a small percentage of women that become pregnant by a rapist, but there are many couples who try for years to become pregnant and for whatever reason God does not allow it. God knows when a baby is conceived. Killing that baby is murdering a child of God! My standards are not my own, but God’s! I will live my life knowing there is a God and I hope your eyes will be opened, too.

          • simple

            To all of you, a few points to ponder between now and November.

            Rights vs. Responsibility

            1. If a woman desires an abortion, on her own dime, that is, ultimately, her right, and one which she will have to live with for the rest of her life.
            2. A woman’s right to have an abortion should not make the taxpayer responsible for her inability, or lack of desire to care for a child.
            2a. IF, however, a portion of my labor pays for her abortion, she is then infringing upon my rights to be free from her lack of responsibility, which should give me the option of how to control her future actions, i.e, sterilization, along with the father’s lack of responsibility, also sterilization. In the near future, irresponsible individuals infringing upon my rights with no appreciation for life will eventually breed themselves out of existence. Problem solved.

            Right vs. Wrong

            With less than 6 months before decisive elections, you are all allowing the media, and your petty beliefs, to divide us once again. There is right, and there is wrong. And unless we all come together for the big picture, the nanny state will win, once and for all, and liberty will die, without a single shot fired….Grow up, nut up, and vote the nanny staters out.

            Or, keep nit-picking one another, each justifying your own existence, failing to realize your existence will depend on safety in numbers.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            I hate to tell you, but it IS against the law for a pregnant woman to drink while pregnant in some states. I believe it should be. In this case, it’s not the government saving us from ourselves but saving an innocent from someone else!!!

          • Audry

            I agree with Simple! I am not a pro lifer. I believe in a division between Church and State. By expressing beliefs based on your religon you are are dividing voters and moving them away from voting any democrat out of office. If your goals were more in line with the financial aspect you would be able to sway more people to voting against the fools in office. Roe Vs Wade and abortion is not an issue here. By bringing it up every election you are effectively moving the 70% of women who voted for Obama to be more on the Democratic side. Stop making aborion an issue a permanent political issue and focus on the ones we are currently dealing with such as unemployment, recession, tax hikes. Every time I see someone base a decsion on their religious beliefs that is fine. It is your belief and not everyone elses. You are giving the Democrats more leverage to split up voters to make them vote on their side. I am for smaller government. I do not care if anyone belives in Jesus, God, Mohammad, Buddah, or none at all. Do not make religion the basis for an argument in politics. That is how the media can claim you fall in the category of far right religious extremists. It is offputting and you do not sway any of those to your cause. Please stop making arguments based on faith and rather on logic. It is fine if you are pro life and think abortion goes against God! That is your belief and not mine. In the context of a political debate, I find it scary that the aborion would be an issue of who you would vote for in an economy that is crashing, with inflation, and unemployment. If this is how you want to debate then be prepared to keep the very vile people who are extending this economic crisis in office a lot longer as they definitely indicate abortion option is still available from the democratic side.

  • Mr. Dana B.

    > Of Course Mr. Koch & anti-christian Jewry would oppose a free thinking (uncensored) propaganda emimancipated, guilt free Christian white male! DUH!

    • Pathfinder

      Anti-christian Jewery ??? While christians and jews disagree on whether Jesus is the promised messiah; we share a common set of moral principles. (The very same ten commandments that the ACLU, athiests, and secular humanists keep trying to ban from public display.)
      Christians and jews should be allies in the fight to save America as they were in our founding. Do not let some national SOCIALIST (Nazi) propagandist drive a wedge between two faiths that have provided some of America’s founding principles. America IS a christian nation. And judiasm is the parent faith from which christianity sprung. All christians worship Jesus, the messiah that was promised to the jews. Without jews, no messiah, and no christianity.

    • Pathfinder

      P. S. This Libertarian thinks Rand Paul is an excellent candidate. I sincerely hope to see him become Senator Rand Paul in the near future.

      • DaveH

        He sure as heck is better than most of the Congresspeople that we now have.

  • Percy

    Joshua Koch sounds like he believes like a Democrat and Rand Paul seems to talk like a Republican, I can see why their ideas would clash. I’m a registered Democrat but would side with Rand Paul over Joshua Koch.

    • Meteorlady

      Koch is the opposite of Soros – extreme opposite. So somewhere there is a middle maybe even middle right, but no more left we can’t afford anymore social experiments.

  • WiZZiK

    Why can’t people have different views? Why can’t Rand share most of his views with Libertarians but have some that differ?

    Why is it that you have to believe either this, or that, with no in-between?

    It’s no wonder this country has been stuck with Dems and Republicans for so long.

  • Liberty Pimp

    Shameful that KY Libertarians do not support property rights and then get on blogs chastising Rand Paul for being pro life. See Rand understands the value of private property and that in order to have freedom you first have to have life. One of the very few legitimate roles of government is protect life. You own your house and you own your business and you own your body, Rand Paul would brave the fires of hell (or the liberal media) to protect life property rights and privacy. Your body is private like your property but no one thinks you should be able kill your children because you are in the privacy of your own home. So it is a legitimate role of government to protect freedom but not the freedom to kill your children or the “right” to another mans labor or property. These are distortions promoted by the global elite who want to exterminate us or have us working as slaves in our own businesses for whomever they should choose.

    • Al Sieber

      I agree with you, it makes sense.

    • American Jen

      “One of the very few legitimate roles of government is protect life. You own your house and you own your business and you own your body, Rand Paul would brave the fires of hell (or the liberal media) to protect life property rights and privacy. Your body is private like your property but no one thinks you should be able kill your children because you are in the privacy of your own home. So it is a legitimate role of government to protect freedom but not the freedom to kill your children or the “right” to another mans labor or property.”

      This should be used by Rand Paul and many others while campaigning. Very well worded. Thank you for getting it. I wish more did. Libertarians are not Liberals!

    • maggiemoo

      Thank you for putting it so well. How anyone can say that an unborn child is just something that a woman can do with as she pleases because it is “her body” is choosing to close their eyes to the facts.

      • s c

        Maggiemoo, consider Obummer’s REAL position on life. He and his Alinsky Nazis say it’s right to murder a baby in a woman’s womb, and at the same time it’s A BEAUTIFUL THING TO STAY MIRED IN A WAR THAT HE CLAIMS IS WRONG BECAUSE THE “FORMER” PREZ STARTED IT! Soldiers are ‘expendable,’ but babies are FAIR GAME.
        Obummer wants it both ways. That’s how we define a drooling, dictatorship-loving, Nazi progressive. Obummer doesn’t care about ANYONE’S babies, or he’d grow a spine and a brain and disown the Margaret Sanger crowd that poses as a group of ‘caring utopians.’ They are in their hearts nothing less than modern, murdering Nazis. Hitler is laughing his evil *** off, knowing that an American prez found ways to love being a Nazi AND a saul alinsky ‘true believer.’

      • Meteorlady

        First I oppose abortion and believe there are many other alternatives. With that said I must ask if you believe that we truly live in a free country? If so, what right have you and I to dictate what another person does with their body when their belief system is different from ours? You and I have a moral view that is the same as a lot of people in this country, but a lot of people in this country also have a different view. That’s call true freedom.

        Do I like rap music – no. Do I want it banned – no.
        Do I like x rated movies – no. Do I want them banned – no.

        Painful though it is, I believe people have the right to do what they feel is right for them, not morally for me or people that believe as I do. You have to walk in another person’s shoes before you can morally control them.

        • Vicki

          We are arguing that when we become pregnant there are now 2 bodies. Both have the right to life. Both have the right to their own bodies. If I have a right to my body when did I get it? When does my baby get his/her right to his/her body?

          Years and years ago I faced this question. I realized that the point is when the spirit enters the body. (for atheists the point is when the brain becomes capable of “free will”) Since we have no way to measure when this event occurs I concluded that abstinence / adoption were the only safe solutions.

          • spoonerist

            Vicki got it right! Please try to explain it to our good friend Dave H. who is wrong on this issue event though he is very solid on almost all other issues.

        • Liberty Pimp

          This is not true, Libertarians come in all shapes and sizes and very on the abortion issue depending on their moral, scientific and legal understanding of the matter. They respect privacy in your home but do not think you can kill your children in your home. They think you should be able to drink or smoke what you want but do not think you should be able to dope your kids up in the womb or in the playpen.
          The problem with your view of libertarian philosophy is that unborn children have legal rights such as inheritance and if you were to run over a pregnant woman (even if she was on her way in to the abortion clinic) you would be charged with 2 counts of manslaughter so they are legal entities. They may not be able to eat or drink on their own but neither can a new born. I think that things like the morning after pill are acceptable because you correctly stated that it is a personal choice and no one has any say so in what you put in your body and the presence of a child is speculative, but when a person needs to hire a “doctor” to commit an act of violence against their unborn fetus it is no longer simply a personal private choice. The laws as they stand less public funding for abortions are not horrid in that they limit the time span to the 1st trimester in most cases but if people want to talk about racism…… higher %s of blacks are aborted so that is how the global elite and liberals are dealing with the issue at the lunch counter. Rand Paul is concerned about the black restaurant owner who should not have to serve a guy in kkk shirt and the father of a killed soldier that wants to discriminate against a member of Fred Phelps’s church of protesting military funerals…

          • s c

            LP, Phelps is a control freak and a progressive. He is, was and will probably remain a ‘closet’ progressive (more than ironic, when you think about it). Phelps is to religion what Judas was.
            Phelps’ “believers” will eventually have to choose between God and Phelps. When they see through Phelps’ mask, they will abandon him.

  • Ed Case

    Doesn’t matter what all you and the media says about Rand Paul were all tired of your lies and you going down with the New Worder Order and the Devil.

    • Pathfinder

      For what it is worth, this Pennsylvania Libertarian thinks that Rand Paul is an excellent candidate. If I were a KY resident; I would vote for him and be glad to have him as my senator. It seems to me that, just as the republicans have RINOs in their party leadership, we may have found a LINO in the Libertarian party. Time to kick him out. (Not Rand Paul, but the LINO)

    • Vicki

      Not sure who this “you” is but in my case I voted for Ron Paul. I would vote for Rand Paul if I were in Kentucky.

      • Liberty Pimp

        I live in IN and have sent him money…. I wish we had a guy like Rand running in my state. We got Dan Coats who is a douche bag lobbyist and the NRA will endorse his Democratic Opponent…
        I would go door to door Rand taking out peoples garbage if they promise to vote for him..

  • Ann Onymous

    “[Paul] went off on a tangent without authorization.”

    The Libertarian party. Didn’t authorize.

    You guys are a laughingstock. Rand Paul is an actual, living, breathing, ideological libertarian. He ‘braved’ the so-called ‘liberal media’ to promote the idea that even jerks like those who would institutionalize racism deserve their voice, and what thanks does he get? You say he was ‘unauthorized’ to have libertarian views! And you say he’s not really a true libertarian, because of his libertarian views!


    • Pathfinder

      Sometimes I wonder if some of my fellow libertarians have been smoking too much of the marijuana that they would like to legalize. (Myself, I eschew both the currently illegal stuff and the legal tobacco.)
      As far as this Libertarian is concerned; I would gladly vote for Rand Paul. I think he will make a great senator. Now if we can just find another like him to run in Pennsylvania where I vote.

      • Claire

        And in Illinois. Wouldn’t that be a hoot! Illinois needs someone like Rand Paul.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          If that were to happen, the libbies in chicago would be in shock for a month!!!

  • Justin

    This is why I left the Libertarian Party, because of all the infighting. Libertarians can be some of the most stubborn and single-minded on the issues. Which shows that you’re principled, but limits your ability to grow beyond those who are not completely “pure”.

    The Libertarian Party is no more than a laughing stock at the electoral level, and yet some of its members wish to demonize Rand Paul, who has a real shot at winning national office, and who at his core is libertarian. There needs to be room in the LP for things like addressing the threat of radical Islam and protecting the rights of women and the unborn.

    At our core we all believe in limited government and the freedom and greatness of this country. Can we please stop tearing each other down and instead focus our efforts against those who wish to grow the entitlement state?

    • Pathfinder

      Amen and Amen. As a registered libertarian, I often wonder if we are determined to shoot ourselves in the foot. Let’s get serious about getting Libertarians into public office. Although Rand Paul is running as a republican, he is one of the most Libertarian candidates I have seen in a long time. (Except for his dad Ron) I fervently hope that the KY libertarians will endorse Rand Paul. (Just listen to the RINOs howl then. The KY RINOs are already upset that someone who truly stands for smaller government is on their ticket.) Please!! someone find a candidate similar to Rand Paul to run here in Pennsylvania so I can vote for him.

    • DaveH

      Oh sure, the Libertarians should just water down their principles until they become irrelevant, kind of like the Republicans have become irrelevant.
      If you believe that a person has a right to manage their own bodies and property, free of government intrusion, then to make exceptions to those principles is just the beginning of the slippery slope. All you have to do is read the different opinions of the commentors on this board to know that if you don’t stick to a rigid set of principles, then freedom will soon be wittled away to nothing.

  • s c

    Does it have to be said that Paul’s inner circle has to weed out RINOs and wannabe progressives? If he has plans for making a difference, he has to control news releases, he has to rip the whore media a new one, he has to be specific when he talks about goals and methods and he has to PROVE that his people can be trusted to do the right thing (it’s that, or say howdy to a reincarnated Ross Perot).
    He should know by now what to expect from the braindead media types. He has a support base, and he has to expand it. He knows what Herr Obummer has done wrong (almost everything), and he’ll have one chance a day to get it right. So why is there any confusion? Confusion is Obummer’s job.

  • Hiram B.

    I find it incredibly, that Democrats stoop to condemning as racist anyone who dares to engage in philosophical discussions about the constitutional limitations on federal powers. Look at the radical onslaught from both the left and right of Rand Paul who dared to voice the fact that a few aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act lacked constitutional authority.

    Lost in the media-generated firestorm designed to falsely paint Paul as a racist and derail his bid for a US Senate seat is any discussion about the reason why civil rights laws were necessary in the first place – Democratic Party racism.

    • Meteorlady

      Because the liberals cannot offer valid, moral arguments, they call names, ignore facts and generally try to shame people into their point of view. Typical of them and their tactics. No true facts, just insults and name calling.

  • Tea Party Tim

    The Libeterian platform can be viewed here ( If you read the platform by strict interpreatation then Rand Paul would not be a Libeterian, which is perfectly fine by me, because there are areas that I am in disagreement with Liberterians.

    I can more readily relate to the Constitution Parties platform ( and it seems that Rand Pauls is more in line with them.

    Honestly, folk. Every inacted law is based upon some moral principle. The question that must be answered is from where will we derive our moral principles.

    • DaveH

      First we have to agree in large majority to what those moral principles are. If a super-majority of people do not agree then all the laws in the world won’t make a behaved society.
      For the other morals (the ones that aren’t widely accepted) that is what religion is for. Practice your religion. That is your right in a Libertarian world. Just don’t try to force it on the rest of us who don’t believe.

      • Tea Party Tim

        It might be odd, but to a large extent I believe that members of the Libeterian Party would be better representatives on a federal level and Constitutionalist Party members on a State and local level. The Libeterians on the Federal level would not impose upon the state and the states would be able to control all matters not specifically delegated to the federal government. It is with this in mind that I support both Rand Paul and Ron Paul.

  • Louise

    Joshua Koch does not speak for all Libertarians. I will back Rand Paul.

  • Meteorlady

    True libertarians do believe that it’s a person’s personal right to have an abortion or the government should not involve itself in moral issues such as gay rights. Thus the flack.

    If you truly want to live in a country that is truly free, then you have to accept that people have different beliefs, values and morality and that should be respected as long as it does not hurt the another person or take away their property rights. However, I would support Rand because he is smart enough to know that some things are just not worth the fight and there is some morality is a lot of laws that are passed, perhaps too much though.

  • Norm

    The libertarian who insists that the state has no place beyond basic night-watchman duties is like a teenager who, having been given a car, promptly starts demanding the right to stay out all night. Sometimes, someone else really is looking out for your best interests by saying no. (This isn’t to say the state is looking out for the best interests of everybody, or even most people. The point is just that, however Glenn Beck might hyperventilate, the government doesn’t want to destroy the market. It wants to preserve it, and it does this job better than the market can on its own.)
    And that’s why the best rap on libertarians isn’t that they’re racist, or selfish. (Though some of them are those things, and their beliefs encourage both bad behaviors, even if accidentally.) It’s that they’re thoroughly out of touch with reality. It’s a worldview that prospers only so long as nobody tries it, and is too unreflective and self-absorbed to realize this. In other words, it’s bratty. And that’s bad enough.

    • JC

      Hilarious…freedom is akin to a teenager with a car.
      Good stuff and truly comical. :)

    • DaveH

      Spoken by the man who supports the immorality of the Democrat Party.
      Norm, if you weren’t selfish, you wouldn’t be trying to impose your limited morality on other people.
      The people that are out-of-touch are those (like yourself) who believe that taking property from those who legally acquired it and distributing it to those who have done nothing to earn it, is the road to selflessness and prosperity. Dream on Norm.

  • Norm

    Dr. Rand Paul the great communicator:

    People actually trust him with a scalpel.

  • http://?? Joe H.

    We trust you with a key board don’t we????

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Redfray

    My, my, my, these commits show we are divided in our thinking. “Divide and conquer”, will work every time. It worked when “pray” was removed from our schools, and the Bible was removed from the libraries, courtrooms, and other government buildings. What has caused all of us to have a poor foundation of moral standards? Something has been successful in dividing us up in to pieces that will not support what is good for all. America once had the loving power of a good personal image, what has demented our attitudes?


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.