Reaction to Dr. Paul's Comments Apart of Much Larger Narrative

Let’s put the comments and the reaction to those comments by Rand Paul aside for a moment. The elite media and the elite political and social class inside the Beltway reacted in the way someone who has become vastly disconnected with not only American history but America’s founders. Make no mistake, the founders were all libertarian with the exception of Alexander Hamilton who admired the British Monarchical system so much he wanted to create an American version which, was immediately slapped down by the anti-Federalists and the Federalists. In fact it was the only thing both sides could unequivocally agree on at the time. When I say libertarian I don’t mean civil libertarians and liberal on government issues, I mean further down the line than both Rand and Ron Paul. The founders, for example Thomas Jefferson, who makes Pen Jillette look like Bernie Sanders was very anti-government, almost to the point where he could be considered an anarchist in some cases, certainly by today’s standards of ideological purity.

Yes the founders wanted to establish a new central government but they also wanted that government to be as powerless and irrelevant to the private lives of the citizens as possible. In fact, the anti-Federalists were so paranoid of this new government they literally revolted against the idea until finally the Bill of Rights were adopted, thanks in part to the influential support from James Madison and Ben Franklin. I believe without the Bill of Rights there wouldn’t be a constitution nor a newly established federal government. What the Bill of Rights did was give anti-Federalists the confirmation they needed to ensure that states’ rights wouldn’t be usurped by the federal body. Rand Paul only echoed the same concern Patrick Henry had 230 years prior.

Henry feared, like many anti-Federalists at the time that the government would become the playground for the elite, the well connected, and would ultimately become an environment of stagnation and gridlock due years of cronyism and special interest as a result of consolidated power and financial influence, and that the president could unite power around him, so much so that he could become king. What Rand Paul said and what he believes echoes, unfortunately the forgotten roots of our very nation. John Jay for example was someone who believed slavery contradicted the freedoms sought by the founders, but he also believed that states would move to act on the matter. Jay didn’t argue for the federal government to step in and force states to adhere to the creed, and if John Jay were alive in 1964 I doubt with great confidence he would vote for the Civil Rights Act.

The argument however against Rand Paul’s comments is that if left to the states African Americans to this day would be treated and considered second class citizens. Well, perhaps that’s true, but even after the Civil Rights ACT you still have racism and discrimination taking place in this country. Now, I’m not suggesting the ACT was a waste because I’m a direct result of the benefits, as in I’m freer today than my family members including my dad was in the 1960s. But, my question is this: How far should the government go? Should the government then force diners and restaurants to eliminate pork dishes on their menus because some Muslim customers complained time and time again because that diner or restaurant served pork chops or pork tenderloin? Or should the federal body force private schools to allow transgendered students to use the Girl’s or Boy’s bathroom? I mean, if a transgendered boy wants to use the girl’s bathroom and his teacher says no because he has male anatomy, should the government step in? And let me elaborate on this, if the boy is transgendered and he’s using the girl’s bathroom, but he has male genitalia and female students complain to the principal, the principal addresses the young man, does the government have the right to override the ruling of the principal that the boy must use the male facility because he has male genitalia?

You see there’s only so far the government can go, or is there? And if there isn’t then how can we defend the unconstitutionality of denying terrorist suspects their day in an American court, yet the left has no problem with government acting in an unconstitutional manner when it comes to civil rights. Yes, I said it because it’s true, the government can push itself beyond its constitutional limits when granting and or protecting civil rights. I believe I call it “Freedom for some, at the expense of others’ freedoms.” The left makes this argument through emotion, not history. They say well, “the minority class isn’t represented; they must be equal to the majority.” Even if the majority loses their rights as a result? In Connecticut we saw an example of this when three white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter were denied promotions due to the accusation and by accusation I mean assumption that the test given to these firefighters were racial discriminatory. The racial discrepancy arose when the black firefighters failed the test. Before giving the firefighters who passed the benefit of hard work and determination, the city of Hartford readily assumed that the test must be racial bias in favor of non-blacks because the black firefighters failed.

Eventually the four firefighters won their case because the Supreme Court ruled against the city of Hartford. Even then, the mayor, the mayor no less said he would seek to overturn the ruling. My word. My point is this; government can only do so much before things get out of hand. Racism still exists, the Civil Rights Act did nothing to cure this disease, it only granted the ill the right to seek treatment, but there is no cure I’m afraid to what ails them. Blacks will always face racial injustice and mistreatment. What we need to do is look inward as a society and not look to the government to step in. The progressive Utopian society is a myth. You cannot have a society without some form of racism or discrimination, jut as you cannot have a country where at least 6 million out of 20 million of its people are unemployed, or 12 million people don’t have access to health coverage.

It’s neither no one’s fault nor the desire of the majority to have racism or unemployment or what have you. It’s called reality, and the founders were smart because they purposely created a non progressive government incapable of being so perfect as to let the citizens wallow in mediocrity and entitlement programs. And at the same time they knew a flawed government would be too incompetent to protect the rights of the individual. So there was a balance, as with everything else in life. The government provides for the common defense meaning the military. Sometimes people assume the police provide for the common defense but the police aren’t actually obligated to protect citizens according to the constitution. The government ensures the pursuit of happiness, not opportunity. Most progressives assume that would “happiness” mean you have a right to be happy, not pursuit happiness. You don’t have a right to free lap dances if you can’t afford one, even if it makes you happy. You do however have the right to get a lap dance if you can afford it. And if the nice lady refuses to give you one then you can’t have one. I better not hear of someone taking their objection to a stripper’s refusal to the Supreme Court.