Tag Archives | rand paul

Rand Paul Reads TenthAmendmentCenter.com

By on May 16, 2011 in Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Health Care, Tenthers

Or, at least, we think alike.

The junior Senator from Kentucky recently said that to believe in a ”right” to health care one must support slavery:

I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery.

He’s right of course. As I pointed out nearly two years ago, it is impossible for government to grant a positive right, like health care, to anyone without first taking the good or service it is granting away from someone else, like a doctor.

As I said then

Whether by forcibly appropriating and redistributing the money to purchase care for those who lack it, or by arbitrarily devaluing the time and effort of those who provide it, once a government mandate supplants voluntary exchange, coercion must be used to exercise that “right” to health care.

But how can taking what belongs to another person (their money, time, or effort) through legislative force be a right?

Is that not the very essence of slavery?

It is, and it’s nice to see someone as prominent and influential as Rand Paul has the guts to say it.

Comments { 0 }

Candidates advocate for state and local control

By on August 28, 2010 in Drug War, State Sovereignty

Two Kentucky candidates recently made Tenth Amendment friendly statements.

While Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Jack Conway continued to press the issue of rampant drug problems in Eastern Kentucky, saying his Republican opponent doesn’t get it and vocally advocating for federal funds, Rand Paul stuck to his guns, reiterating that he opposes federal funding for drug enforcement and addiction programs.

Paul insists the best way to deal with problems comes through innovating local solutions, adding that Washington siphoning money out of the state makes that more difficult.

“Right now we send money to Washington that comes back to us after it circulates through the Washington bureaucracy. Maybe if we weren’t sending so much to Washington, we’d have more in Kentucky,” Paul said.

Paul’s stand has apparently cost him some points in the polls. But Paul is right. And even if those dollars create some benefit when Washington deems it fit to bless the Commonwealth with a little windfall, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to fund drug programs. Continue Reading →

Comments { 1 }

Reclaiming Our Liberty

By on June 23, 2010 in Delegated Powers

Professor Williams and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul discuss balancing the budget, the Enumerated Powers Act, the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment and other fundamental issues of liberty. http://www.LibertyPen.com

Comments { 1 }

Rand Paul and Military Commissions

By on November 28, 2009 in Elections, Terrorism

Ron Paul’s Senate-aspiring son takes some un-libertarian positions which causes controversy among the freedom movement.

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Seems like the self-described constitutionalist Rand should listen to his father, Ron, about the blatantly unconstitutional Military Commissions.

In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)

The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the Executive Branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the president and without the right of Habeas Corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA (National Security Agency). It also gives to the president the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Comments { 53 }