Senator Rand Paul’s Imaginary Libertarian Immigrants

John T. Bennett, American Thinker, June 20, 2014

Sen. Rand Paul has suddenly become aware of facts that do not exist. “Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States,” he wrote in an op-ed last week.

However, over half of Hispanics are literally telling us that they reject “capitalism,” and the two largest immigrant groups (Hispanics and Asians) are voting overwhelmingly for the more anti-capitalist of the two major parties.

A 2011 Pew poll asked, “[D]o you have a positive or negative reaction to the word . . . Capitalism [or] Socialism”? Fifty-five percent of Hispanics reported having a “negative reaction” to the word “capitalism.” Compare that 55% with self-identified “Liberal Democrats,” 47% of whom had a “negative reaction” to the word “capitalism.” Only 32% of Hispanics had “a positive reaction” to the word “capitalism.” Forty-one percent of blacks and 55% of whites had “a positive reaction” to the word “capitalism.”

By any measure, the Pew polling data is more accurate and reliable than Paul’s musings about why immigrants come here.

When Paul talks about what “immigrants are drawn to,” he does not cite to any research or even provide an anecdote. Neither he nor any other Republican can name asingle city or state that became more conservative/market-oriented because of mass immigration or racial pandering. Even more disturbing, these people can’t name a single conservative party in any Western nation that has won more elections because of non-Western immigration. Paul’s only citation is “nation of immigrants.”

That’s part of the problem with Republican wishful thinking on immigration “reform”: no facts, no reasoning, nothing but blind faith that the GOP can make the ultimate racial pander pay off. Paul is taking the exact same unrealistic, PC approach to immigration that Eric Cantor took.

The data shows something about modern immigration that immigration “reformers”–particularly the libertarian ones–are oblivious to. This obliviousness is odd, given Milton Freidman’s immigration maxim: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” Last year, Paul himself said, “I do agree with Milton Freidman. You can’t have open borders in a welfare state.” Something changed, and today Paul appears to have been visited by an apparition: masses of libertarian illegal immigrants.

Where did Paul go wrong? There is a difference between immigrating to a country because you can get more money there and immigrating to a country because you are ideologically committed to an economic model. Sen. Paul would have to be extremely idealistic, or blind to the facts, not to see the difference between the two, and the difference matters immensely. The bottom line is that any given immigrant could desire both a private-sector job and the benefits of welfare.

Conservatives insist that welfare and regulation hurt economic growth. But there is an important caveat: an economically depressed America, with an expanding welfare state and Democrat control, may still provide a better standard of living than what many immigrants experience in a country like Mexico, for instance. California is a perfect example of this perverse outcome, where immigrants seeking jobs have turned the state into a leftist bastion. There is no real inconsistency between wanting a job and promoting the welfare state. There is a tradeoff between equality and efficiency, but one can easily work a private-sector job and desire income supplements in the form of welfare. The relative economic hardship of the home country makes the American welfare state a comparative gain for many immigrants, even if the welfare state constricts the American economy to some degree. If and when America becomes less free market-oriented, the immigrant still obtains comparatively greater benefits from our economy overall. This is why it is unsound for Paul to project his libertarian ideology on to others. It may be hard for many conservatives to accept, but it is theoretically possible that immigrants are not always drawn to what conservatives think is the optimal economic model for America.

To illustrate how off-base Paul and the “immigration reformers” are, consider a hypothetical family from Mexico who come to America illegally. They know they can make more money here, and most people like having more money. Since we’re not defending our border, the family crosses. The family are used to Mexican standards of living. So they will work for lower wages than most Americans, and even an economically depressed area of America will provide them with more opportunities than what they had at home. It is not the free market they’re looking for; it’s a bigger paycheck. Welfare supplements a paycheck.

Now, let’s say some of the family members eventually vote. They can choose the party of high spending and welfare, or they can choose the party that keeps talking about capitalism and “old dead white men.” Capitalism and the old dead white men generally will not resonate with Mexican immigrants, or with people who often consider themselves “Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran or Dominican,” etc., even though they are American citizens. This is especially the case when the immigrant believes that the U.S. “stole” the southwest from Mexico. Thus, the hypothetical immigrant or recent immigrant voter frequently chooses the welfare party. To be sure, this voter hears the “almost exclusively white” conservative party warn about the dire long-term consequences of too much government. But if the voter doesn’t feel the pinch of taxation, and actually benefits in the short term from the welfare state, then he is not going to heed warnings about future macroeconomic harm.

From the standpoint of short- and medium-term economic interests, the immigrants from poorer countries are–plausibly–subjectively better off with the welfare state, even if that welfare state leads to a declining American economy. Worse yet, because there will be wave upon wave of such immigrants, there will always be a new cohort of people who are glad to work low wages and take welfare. Under current immigration policy, we are constantly importing inequality.

Furthermore, if one believes, as libertarians and conservatives do, that embracing the welfare state is inconsistent with promoting free-market capitalism, then it is hard to escape the conclusion that immigrants are rejecting capitalism in startling numbers. Forty-three percent of immigrants who have been in America for over 20 years are on some form of welfare, which is a higher percentage than immigrants who have been in the U.S. for less than five years, according to an analysis of Census Bureau statistics conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies. This means that the longer immigrants remain in America, the closer they bond to the welfare state. As one example, Harvard economist George Borjas concludes that Hispanics are “[a]ssimilating into the welfare system.” Fifty-seven percent of Mexican immigrants receive some form of welfare, compared with 6% of U.K. immigrants.

Seeing as how Sen. Paul’s state of Kentucky has one of the lowest percentages of immigrants of any state, he will have to understand if few people take his assessments of contemporary immigration seriously.

There’s nothing wrong with big tents, outreach (as opposed to pandering), or positive political thinking. But past immigration is no indication of present or future immigration; the melting pot is completely broken today. We’ve got to stop expecting assimilation when all of the factors that once created assimilation are now absent. If we continue to elect leaders that are as ill informed on the immigration issue as Rand Paul, then we deserve the consequences that are certain to follow.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Rand Paul doesn’t know his ass from a hole int he ground, but he’s good for a laugh.

    “This is why it is unsound for Paul to project his libertarian ideology on to others.”

    All libertarians think everybody would be a libertarian if they would only read enough Rothbard.

    • The vast majority of Libertarians are just as ignorant on race issues as Democrats and Republicans. They have no race consciousness and a good many support open borders.

      • I’m not sure that most libertarians are actually conscious.

        • Löwenmensch ᛟ

          A real libertarian would believe in direct democracy where the people vote on laws, not a plutocratic puppet republic.

          • Mob rule?

          • Löwenmensch ᛟ

            No that’s liberty, as long as there is basic requirements to become a voter. Tests for mental fitness, ownership of property, etc.

          • In other words, an oligarchy who makes the rules.

          • Löwenmensch ᛟ

            The oligarchy is making the rules now by buying off politicians that vote on the laws. In a direct democracy every qualified citizen would vote on law.

          • oligarchy- form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

            direct democracy-Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.

            If you qualify your voters, you create an oligarchy. It may be a large oligarchy, but its still an oligarchy. The question is will it remain the same size, get larger or shrink?

          • Löwenmensch ᛟ

            I don’t believe stupid people or welfare renters have a right to vote. Weather it gets larger or shrinks depends on the evolution of the people and economic prosperity of the nation.

          • I ,too, believe limited democracy is the way to go; the more local the better.

          • Barbara Jeremy

            my&nbspbuddy’s&nbsphalf-sister&nbspΜ­­­­­­а­­­­­­K­­­­­­е­­­­­­ѕ&nbsp$­­­­­­­81&nbspհ­­­­­­­ο­­­­­­­ս­­­­­­rly&nbsp­ο­n&nbspthe&nbspс­­­­­­­ο­­­­­­­Μ­­­­­­ρ­­­­­­ս­­­­­­τ­­­­­­е­­­­­­r.&nbspShe&nbsphas&nbspbeen&nbspfired&nbspfr­ο­m&nbspW­­­­­­­ο­­­­­­­r­­­­­­K&nbspf­ο­r&nbsp10&nbspΜ­­­­­­­ο­­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ&nbspbut&nbsplast&nbspΜ­­­­­­­ο­­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ&nbspher&nbspinc­ο­me&nbspwas&nbsp$­­­­­­­12227&nbspjust&nbspW­­­­­­­ο­­­­­­­r­­­­­­King&nbsp­ο­n&nbspthe&nbspс­­­­­­­ο­­­­­­­Μ­­­­­­ρ­­­­­­ս­­­­­­τ­­­­­­е­­­­­­r&nbspf­ο­r&nbspa&nbspϜ­­­­­­е­­­­­­W&nbspհ­­­­­­­ο­­­­­­­ս­­­­­­rs.&nbspvisit&nbspthis&nbspweb-ѕ­­­­­­і­­­­­­τ­­­­­­е,…C&#97&#x73&#104&#83&#x74&#111&#x72&#101d&#46&#x43&#111&#77

            ✪✪✪ �✪✪✪ ✪✪✪ ✪✪✪� ✪✪✪

          • Sick of it

            The Founders had the same mindset, more or less.

          • UncleSham

            Democracy does not equal liberty. Liberty is an end. Democracy is a means, and not a particularly good one.

          • Real libertarians do not travel illegally to foreign nations in search of free, taxpayer-funded goodies.

        • Sick of it

          Hans Herman Hoppe is a rather intelligent man, I simply disagree with his conclusions.

          • Yeah, I know some of them are pretty smart, probably too smart, what Charlton calls “clever sillies.”

      • propagandaoftruth

        I respect a lot of libertarian thought but I think the overall gist of modern American libertarianism is the same misapprehension of the root problem as the liblefty crypto-Marxists of the American left.

        Both seek to solve all the problems by addressing symptoms and ignoring the cancer causing said symptoms.

      • scottthestrategerist

        *I* am Libertarian-ish and *I* believe in race! In fact, before I ever believed in race, I invented a new philosophy which I call Libertarian Nationalism. Essentially, it’s internal economic freedom coupled with the high protective tariff, restrictive immigration (which I have modified to fairly open borders for whites, absolute open borders for Nordics and absolutely closed borders for nonwhites) and a noninternventionist, but powerful, military to protect us from and to deter foreign invasions. In short, the purpose of govt is to PROTECT the free society, which it does by protecting us from outsiders, as outsiders, not coming from a free society, threaten the free society and must therefore be kept out. By way of example, a free American worker making $20 per hour shouldn’t have to compete with a quasi-slave in China making 20 cents an hour.

        • That’s not libertarianism, that’s good ole fashioned patriotism, nationalism and common sense. Things which the modern libertarian wants nothing to do with.

          Welcome to our side.

          • scottthestrategerist

            I always was on your side. I just take seriously the Lockian principle (which he himself didn’t take seriously) that an individual has the right to do whatever he wants so long as he doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s liberty. Now to clarify that, I’m against abortion (but will make an exception for nonwhite children), homosexual privileges of any kind and gun control, and I’m fine with voluntary school prayer. So what does that make me? 🙂

          • Jesse James

            It is almost straight Pat Buchanan style paleo-conservatism.

        • KevinPhillipsBong

          Is this different from Paleolibertarianism?

          • scottthestrategerist

            Heh. Probably not. But I still coined the term “libertarian nationalist!” 🙂

        • UncleSham

          I really like these ideas, only i probably wouldn’t let in a Nordic communist.

      • miseshayekrothbard

        How can you have race consciousness in a place with large populations of different races? I understand and have no problem with anyone forming a secessionist group, but Jared Taylor and the like seem to act like this is a 100% or 95% white country and a horde of brownies are coming in to pollute it all. They may be right in saying that, however, we have always had a large black population. The South in particular is one third black. What is the solution to all this? Splitting up the US? Expelling non-whites? Closing borders and working to outbreed the nonwhites?

        Personally, I think the US is too big as is and it would do everyone well to see it break apart, which would also conform with the views and agenda of white conscious persons.

    • JohnEngelman

      And Ayn Rand. They think that if everyone was assigned to read Atlas Shrugged in high school all would be well.

      • Lt. Greyman, NVA

        John, respectfully 70% of Detroit can’t read. Pearls before swine and all that.

        Whites have to realize that they need a homeland. Building a White homeland would be a tiny thing, a thing Whites have been doing for thousands of years, only this time it would be sealed. Is it so hard for others to acknowledge that the race that has given the World tremendous gifts in terms of Medicine, Science, Mathematics, Art and Music might need a small place of their own? And why should others care if some people up in Idaho or Washington State form a Homeland? Must all the world be accepting all? Is the ego of the other races so small that they must always be included in every square mile of the Earth while Whites have no safe area in all of Africa?

    • Steven Barr

      Murray Rothbard actually thought parents shouldn’t be prosecuted if they let their children starve to death.

      • Yeah, something about infringing on the child’s liberty by imposing rules even for his own good.

      • Usually Much Calmer

        If you abolish welfare, there will be no alternative for some parents.
        What are you doing to do? And if a parent starves their own child, what can you do as punishment? Jiminy Cricket punishes them enough, I’d bet.

      • Sick of it

        Interesting. Murder has always been considered a crime.

      • scottthestrategerist

        Rothbard had a lot of philosophical musings. Don’t let that distract from his REAL MESSAGE, which isn’t even libertarian. What he really had to tell the world is that the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, create paper money out of nothing and then loan it to the USG at face value plus compound interest. So why can’t the USG just print its own money (as bad as that would be) and avoid the interest to private banks for the “privilege” of having delegating to them the sovereign power to create money? Well, that’s the scam. The second part of the message is that banks create money out of nothing through the fractional reserve system since, on a 10% reserve ration, for each dollar deposited into the bank, it loans out 10. If the loans aren’t repaid, then the bank can go to the Fed for a bailout. Where did the bank get the other 9 from? Nowhere. Every bank is inherently bankrupt since, if all depositors demanded their money simultaneously, the bank wouldn’t have the money as they’ve falsely claimed to hold your money for you in a demand deposit, while at the same time giving it out to other people 9 times!

    • jayvbellis

      And Central American Amer Indians don’t read….

      Anything.

      Not Libertarian books, not books in English or even in Spanish .

      Neither to Muslim extremists in the Middle East or the American Mid West.

      They don’t read period.

      But they are not “stupid”.

      No we are stupid for enabling the likes of Ron Paul and Rand Paul.

    • scottthestrategerist

      Well, that’s largely true, but when have any people except for whites and Jews ever shown any interest in Rothbard??? No, they’re “economics” are “gibmedats!”

      • Very few whites show any interest in Rothbard.

        • I think we’re getting confused. You’re both right:

          * Of the universe of people that even know who Murray Rothbard was or why he was important, they’re almost 100% white (incl. Jewish).

          * Of the universe of white people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, only a very small percentage of either know who Murray Rothbard was or why he was important.

          Lather rinse repeat for just about any academic by name.

          Dave Brat probably knows who Murray Rothbard was and why he was important. But he was smart enough not to base his campaign around Murray Rothbard by name. He won because he made it clear the other guy who already had the job was doing bad things to cost people their jobs.

          • scottthestrategerist

            I *slightly* disagree. Fact: we have a corrupt banking system. It’s NOT free enterprise. (I don’t use the word “capitalism” as it was coined by Marx himself and I don’t allow the enemy to define me.) The banking system is pure fraud as private banks create money out of nothing. Fact: if you criticise the banking system, you’re called antiSemitic. Fact: the best writings exposing the banking system were from Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, the latter being a Jew who fled Europe to escape the Nazis and wrote a book entitled “Omnipotent Govt” in which he called for the deaths of all Nazis. Conclusion: Attack the banking system, citing Rothbard and von Mises, repeat that they were Jewish and how the latter fled Europe, over and over and over and over again, in order to avoid charges of antiSemitism and keep the debate focused on the banking system. Comment: if every Jew evaporated tomorrow, I would STILL be against the banking system as it’s fraudulent and causes tremendous harm to our economy, even if there was not a single Jew even indirectly involved in it.

    • Jesse_from_Sweden

      He might have a point though.
      Or rather, he might have a libertarian agenda and he’s willing to lie in order to further it’s cause.

      The article makes one mistake, it says that no western country has gotten more conservative due to immigration.
      That depends a bit on how you define conservative.
      In Sweden, it’s traditionally been the Social democrats who have held power (up until 2000-something, the “right-wing” alliance had never held power for more than one period) but now it’s the “conservative” moderates who are in power.
      Of course, immigrants don’t vore for them, and they want to restrict the welfare state which the social democrats want to expand.
      So why are the moderates gaining momentum by importing large masses of voters for their political opponents?
      Because when swedes see that their taxes are paying for welfare for immigrants, they get disillusioned of the welfare state and are less keen to support third world immigrants compared to supporting fellow swedes.

      So the moderates are actually gaining from it. They are importing voters for the left block but at the same time they are driving over swedes from the left block to their side.

      Unfortunately for swedes, both sides wants lots of immigrants, for various reasons (Sweden democrats, the only ones opposing it, are the black sheep that neither block wants to have anything to do with).

      The same thing could hold true for libertarians like Paul here.
      He wants capitalism, he wants less welfare state.
      It may seem counter-productive to let in lots of third world people who are voting in favour of more welfare state, but what is happening is that they are becoming a big burden on the welfare system. And the system can’t handle an endless amount of pressure. It will collapse and the tax-paying people won’t be willing to support it and will vote for a party that wants less welfare.

      The result will be an end to the welfare state, due to the tax-paying segment of the population being more polarized by it.

      Of course, in order to get this capitalist society without any welfare system, that means widening the gaps in society and essentially throwing the white working class under the bus.

      And then in the end he will get his libertarian dream state. But it will be one with a large underclass and a poor working class.
      And the middle class and upper class will live in gated communities and spend money on police to keep the riff-raff out rather than any welfare for the masses.

      This will of course also means other advantages for “the capitalists” in that there will be a large poor mass of people that can be hired for cheap labour.
      So no more need for outsourcing due to high wages and large tax costs for companies.

      A welfare state and socialism is actually a good thing.
      In a homogenous society, like the scandinavian ones were just a few decades ago…

      But immigration is a tool to crack those welfare states, by simply overburdening them.
      But both capitalists and socialists think they will gain from it.
      While in reality, everyone who lives in those countries will end up losing from it.
      With the possible exception of a small, rich elite which can afford to pay for things like private security, private schools, private healthcare etc.

      • That’s an ugly thought, destroy everything to get some fringe economic theories implemented. Fortunately,I doubt Paul is as clever and nefarious as that.

        “A welfare state and socialism is actually a good thing.
        In a homogenous society, like the scandinavian ones were just a few decades ago…”

        I’m not sure about socialism, but some welfare for those fallen on hard times isn’t bad assuming a culture that doesn’t abuse it. I think that’s what allowed Scandinavian countries to get along with lavish welfare benefits, native Scandinavians didn’t take advantage of the system. Maybe its morals, or just pride, I don’t know.

  • Good show and well said, but the motivation isn’t hard to figure out. Philosophically, it’s the old Jack Kemp mold of trying to mash up some bastardized version of libertarianism with anti-“racist” cultural Marxism. Practically, he’s thinking about the donors for his (joke of a) Presidential campaign.

    • MBlanc46

      Yep. All politics, no analysis.

  • Dave4088

    Rand man is both libertarian ideologue who thinks (absent evidence) that every racial group is enamored with trade and commerce and shrewd and opportunistic politician who has thrown his lot in with the anti-white immigration reform (read: amnesty) crowd to cast himself as a tolerant everyman and to ingratiate himself with the Marxist media for his presumed 2016 presidential run.

    • Publius Pompilius Quitus

      It will at least be entertaining (if not tiresome) to see Paul, Rubio, and whatever other unlucky fools feign indignation and sanctimony in 2016. Ultimately, they will be trampled by Hillary’s army of feminists and immigrants.

      • Rhialto

        Many will find in a bit less entertaining when H. Rodham_Clinton assumes the presidency of the US.

        “It’s time for a Final Solution to the White man problem”, Prez Rodham_Clinton will proclaim in her inaugural address.

        • Bossman

          I’m sure she will be saying words to that effect.

        • Sick of it

          Perhaps the relatives of those she had murdered will finally give her what she deserves.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      Libertarians are ideologically programmed to deny that there are cultural and biological prerequisites for capitalism and democracy. These ideologues think that churning out large numbers of entrepreneurial indios and mestizos is simply a matter of freely distributing copies of Rothbard and Mises to the illiterate brown hordes. If it were that simple, the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors would have given the world dynamic, first world economies and not the dying remnants of that mud puddle of an empire we still have to deal with.

      • Wirbelwind1

        Not sure why the anger towards Libertarianism. Is there any other political philosophy that advocates for white rights in the US? Libertarians, by principle, don’t subscribe to cultural marxism or race pandering. Its primarily about limiting the power of the State…something that would be a welcome change in today’s climate. Imagine if the US suddenly *poofed* into a libertarian model state?

        • “Libertarians…don’t subscribe to cultural Marxism or race pandering”

          Au contraire, I am of the opinion that not only do they, but on top of that, those things are the cost of the ticket to ride the modern libertarian train. Limiting the power of the state and other such things are just their talk and rhetoric they use to get an audience, but they don’t care much about those things.

          Consider this:

          studentsforliberty (dot) org/blog/2014/06/12/a-libertarian-response-to-eric-cantors-defeat/

          • Wirbelwind1

            As somebody who greatly appreciates your commentary I will check out the link.

            I think what I’m getting at is that the principles of limited government and individual freedom appeal to me. I also believe that big government is the reason we are in the mess were in. Isf the states were sovereign..I think Texas, NM and Arizona would put a swift, politically incorrect fix to our border problem.

          • But California wouldn’t, making Texas, NM and Arizona’s efforts pointless.

            Libertarianism doesn’t work in practice unless you seal it up within an authoritarian bubble. It has to be protected from non-libertarians because it can’t protect itself.

          • And the modern libertarian doesn’t approve of an authoritarian bubble, that’s their whole raison d’etre these days. As your post immediately below proves.

        • jayvbellis

          And “imagine” if all the poor Black People Africa, Detroit suddenly went “poof” and became honest, productive, law abiding Conservatives.

          “Imagine” if all the Muslims in Iraq, Pakistan and all those other “Stan” countries became social liberals, embraced religious toleration, women’s rights, gay rights…

          Imagine…

          (Have you been listening to that God awful John Lenon song “imagine” )

          Utopian Libertarian imagination is a bad as same old same old Liberal utopian dreams of the United Nations governed by Ernest liberals like them ending war, poverty and injustice and the worst RACISM and …

          “Making the world one”

          • Marc Zuckurburg

            “Imagine” by John Lennon loops over and over again over the intercom at Facebook. It’s our corporate fight song.

          • Wirbelwind1

            Now your just being rude.

            I wasn’t being Utopian. I was saying that governance under a Libertarian model would be far preferable to the hulking beast we have now. Some points:

            -How much immigration would we have if we didn’t have a massive Welfare state drawing people in?

            -What form of government is preferable? National Socialism? So you would surrender the bulk of your rights, pay massive taxes, have a massive bureaucracy dictate how to run most of your life in order to stop illegal immigrants? I’m drawing an extreme example but I’d like to hear a rational proposal.

            – Let’s not forget that we had the country we (as Whites) wanted but we blew it. Good ole..White Power led White America into the wonderful diverse hell hole we have now. Who else is to blame? Jews? Cmon. We allowed our government to grow into Leviathan and it has corrupted us in all forms and fashions. If we didn’t have the massive state we would all have freedom of association to form our own communities.

          • Sick of it

            Yes, we just rolled over and let it happen rather than fighting a massive Civil War. Oh wait…

          • Wirbelwind1

            So who was our enemy then? Blacks, Jews? Or a large tyrannical government? Not trying to be argumentative, but I don’t think I get your point. It was still Whites in power who led us down this path.

          • Sick of it

            The United Nations has done a good job keeping sex slavery rings in business.

    • scottthestrategerist

      Or maybe he feels he has to do this to escape the “racism” brush which was used against his father? He may be shrewder than we think. I certainly hope so!

  • Rand Paul is naive if not intentionally stupid. For a supposed smart man, he’s awfully ignorant about the nature of the Hispanic invaders that are daily crossing our borders.

    The vast majority of these people have no idea about free market capitalism, and don’t care to understand it either. A good many of them don’t even have the mental capacity to comprehend such concepts. A good portion of them have extremely low IQ levels, and the cultures they come from don’t value education the way whites do.

    They also aren’t yearning for ‘freedom.’ They’re yearning for a first-world salary while still retaining their third-world culture and customs. They have no intention of assimilating and they have both said so and proven it by their actions.

    They don’t care about America nor its history. They don’t care about concepts of limited government, the importance of property rights, and capitalism. They don’t even think in such terms. These are all foreign to them because this is the white man’s ideas, the way he thinks, the way he reasons and views the world. Such concepts for the illiterate Amerindian peasants are utterly strange to them.

    This is why no Mexican, El Salvadorian, or Honduran would have ever conceived and created America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    These people belong in the countries they came from and not in the U.S. where they have nothing to truly contribute to our republic – other than cheap labor – but how well has that worked?

    • Bossman

      Every independent country in the Americas have adopted a Constitution similar to the USA with an attached Bill of Rights.

      • I doubt they are anything truly like ours. Moreover, while they may have COPIED certain elements and principles of ours, they would have never conceived nor have been able to write our Constitution and Bill of Rights. They simply don’t think in such terms ON THEIR OWN.

        We often forget who these people are. They are essentially indians, mixed with some Spanish blood (at least in the case of Mexicans) and most of them are have relatively low IQs (yes, there are exceptions).

        • Bossman

          As I understand it from some historians, the Framers of the Constitution learned and adopted a few things from the American Indians. Many of the early English colonists were very inspired by the free lifestyle of the Indians that they encountered on the frontiers.

      • So? What good did it do them? They got the lyrics but they didn’t get the melody, if you grasp the analogy. They superficially adopted the product of another civilization, but it didn’t make them any better off because they are not of the civilization that developed the ideas that are the foundation of the words.

        We have our Constitution and BoR, too. What good is it doing us? As we throw away our own demographics and come more and more to bow down to the negro, Indo, Oriental and Allah knows what else, our own Constitution will become a dead meaningless document.

        Bringing this discussion full circle, this is why you should close your ears to anyone who calls himself a Constitutionalist yet is either uninterested in or is on the wrong side of the demographics and national question. It makes no sense to want to save a document without saving the people, culture and civilization that developed the document.

        • jayvbellis

          Hey QD – I do tip my hat to you as Amren’s best commenter, and I salute your very practical real world political activism.

          But, give me some credit. I was the first one to “out” the Ron Paul/Rand Paul Constitutionalist Libertarian cult as flat out traitors. You used to question why I was so strong against Ron Paul, asked if something personal that happened to me from him, them was causing me to obsess about Ron Paul, when just about all the good a White people you knew liked and strongly supported Ron Paul and his rising star son Rand Paul.

          I have always had something of a gift to see clearly what others could not. Too often bpmy gift of prophesy is Cassandra like, few listen. But Amren did listen to me on this one. I was the original driving force to get Amren to resume Istauration Magazine’s traitor of the year award and make a Rand Paul the worst traitor of 2013.

          Amren listened to me and they nailed Rand Paul and his star is falling fast.

          • And you are correct. Back when I first started reading AR, and you were just plain “Jack from Chicago,” you were telling us what we should have understood all along, or we did subconsciously and didn’t want to admit it to ourselves. Even as late as 2012, when the Republican field was down to the last four, I was hoping Ron Paul would do well, but only because he was the best of what was left. My preferred candidate at the start of the season was Michele Bachmann, who wound up winning the Ames straw poll that Ron Paul actually tried to win. She had the best understanding of the immigration question of all the candidates, and it has only gotten better in the recent handful of months. Unfortunately, the day she won Ames, that damned Rickroller announced and took all the wind out of her sails, then the Rickroller himself crashed and burned for how weak he was on immigration.

            Four years prior, I wound up permanently ruining some good relationships because my preferred candidate that year was Duncan Hunter and not Ron Paul. Again for the immigration question.

            As for that other thing, it’s my experience that when people grind over something, it’s almost always for a personal motive. I always guessed some scam-slinging Ron Paul follower bilked out out of a lot of money, but it turns out it was nothing like that. It’s just as simple as the fact that you spent a lot of years trying to knock some good solid racial sense into the skulls of libertarian cultists to no avail. When people are that thrown into some kind of cult, religious, ideological, personality, or whatever, nobody can talk them out of it with any words, it’s going to take events and circumstances that happen out of the control of any one person to snap them out of it if they ever can be snapped out of it. Otherwise, they’ll drink the Kool-Aid. Even former cultists that get away from their cult, you always have to worry about them falling in with another cult.

          • jayvbellis

            Yes agreed.

            And make no mistake about it:

            The Ron Paul/Rand Paul Libertarian Constitutionalist cult is a real cult. The Cult leaders get fame and fortune, the followers have to follow and the cult is brutal on anyone who tries to leave this cult.

            If you or anyone you love is falling down in to this cult – get help, get out.

          • BTW while I have you on the line, here’s something that will interest you:

            http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/20/Texas-Border-Surge-Militia-Groups-Responding

            Pay attention to the first few paragraphs.

            Whether or not they’ll help the situation and make a positive difference remains to be seen. But my point in bringing this up to you is to prove a hunch that I’ve had, that while Cliven Bundy himself just doesn’t get it about Hispanics, based on him being an old man who has lived in the middle of nowhere his whole life and never spending any time around the gang bangers, cartel members and barrio worthies in the big cities, those that support him don’t believe him when he says that Hispanics are all these good hard working family people.

            It’s definitely a new day.

        • Lt. Greyman, NVA

          “…It makes no sense to want to save a document without saving the people, culture and civilization that developed the document.”

          This maybe one of the finest comments I have ever read, the perfect summation of all the political arguments. Read this again everyone. It makes no sense to watch a people die but save “the Constitution” or “capitalism” if the people who created it are gone. I don’t always agree with you QD, but you are right on target. Fire for Effect.

          White Homeland! Northwest Front!

      • So CAL Snowman

        A parrot can mimic human speech, that doesn’t mean that the parrot knows how to talk or what it’s saying.

      • Sick of it

        Trotsky wrote the old Mexican constitution.

        • Erasmus

          In the interest of full disclosure, shouldn’t we start calling him by his real name? Lev Bronstein.

          • jayvbellis

            How about calling him..

            The dead Communist.

            Give Stalin credit for doing something right. He handled Trotsky in the only way that works.

          • While I almost completely agree, there is another way to defeat an enemy: convince him that he is wrong and then make him your friend; not necessarily in that order.

          • Sick of it

            People dedicated to the annihilation of your race will not be stopped by an argument. They may lie and pretend they care, but they do not.

          • Erasmus

            And if only Stalin had liquidated Trotsky’s supporters before they’d had progeny, we wouldn’t today have the neocons now infesting Washington and might not ever have had our bankruptingly expensive misadventures into the ME. (One can dream.)

      • jayvbellis

        Yeah, and Black Haitians adopted the language of the French Revolution “Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood”. When it became clear that the Haitians Blacks weren’t going to achieve complete equality, brotherhood and liberty with European Whites in Haiti, the Blacks slaughtered all the White people.

        Similar things are happening in Detroit, Memohis TN and Arab, Black suburbs of Paris.

        What’s the moral of this story?

        A. White men’s utopian poltical and economic , social philosophies are pretty much worthless or worse when applied to the lowest non Whites.

    • MBlanc46

      I doubt that many of them have any expectation of first-world salaries (nor do many young first-worlders). Escaping grinding poverty and maybe indoor plumbing and (more-or-less) reliable electricity is more than likely plenty of motivation for most of them.

      • Perhaps, but they know their salaries working in the fields and in construction are sizably greater here in America than anything they will make in Mexico.

        The Mexicans who are already here, I’m sure, boast to their brethren in Mexico how much they make and how much property they own.

        The greater majority who come here from Mexico and Latin America know full well that they’re arriving in a first-world nation with benefits and opportunities they could never get in their own third-world sewers.

        I think they’re expecting much more than simply “reliable electricity.”

        • MBlanc46

          When you hear about them sleeping in shifts in the same bed, it doesn’t seem as if they expect, or feel they need, much,

    • scottthestrategerist

      Average IQ in Mexico: 87

      Average black American IQ: 85

      The problems is Mexico is dumping it’s STUPIDEST citizens upon us, so we’re getting those on the dumb side of 87.

  • Raymond Kidwell

    The wrong assumption made here is that politicians are trying to get elected by voters. Instead it works this way- secret society/cabal of rich oligarchs make the policies. Politicians then sell those policies to the masses. Media and schools participate. Both parties stand for the same core agendas so it doesn’t matter which one wins.

    However, the lie (the illusion) is given that there is no secret cabal pulling the strings and for no dang reason all these politicians keep supporting policies that don’t reflect what the voters want, are harmful to the nation etc. In fact the only way the actions of these politicians makes any sense is if we do believe they are being guided by an “invisible hand” as Edward Bernays would put it.

    • MBlanc46

      It’s not a secret society. They’re the people who show up at the $50,000 a head confabs that the Romneys, the Clintons, and the Obamas of the world throw.

    • MikeofAges

      That is absolutely right. Establishment historians would have you believe, for example, that Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party mobilized to the German masses, who then overwhelmed the elites. Actually, it was the other way around. Nationalist elements withing the elite created Hitler for the express purpose of overwhelming the masses. I need to know no more than that Hitler in 1919 met a Freikorps general for dinner. 30-year-old former corporals don’t meet with generals because they picked the general. They meet because the general picked them,

      Possibly, the Orleanist faction in Eighteenth Century France instigated the French Revolution to get rid of the Bourbons and take over the throne themselves.

      Speaking of things, is everybody sure that the rise of ugly Black Nationalism and Black separatism, the rise of Liberationist ideology among other non-white elements in the American population, and the rise of radical Feminism among upper strata white women all were autonomous expressions of the will of the rank-and-file?

  • Publius Pompilius Quitus

    Left-Libertarianism is a self-destructive dogma: by opposition to immigration controls, it alienates people who would otherwise support it–and through its support for immigration, it imposes its own death.

  • So CAL Snowman

    To a Mexican, the term “free-market” refers to their rampant use of EBT and SNAP instead of their own money to fill their grocery carts with beans, chicken, and tortillas.

  • JohnEngelman

    Milton Freidman’s immigration maxim: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”

    – John T. Bennett, American Thinker, June 20, 2014

    ———-

    “open immigration can’t exist with a strong social safety net; if you’re
    going to assure healthcare and a decent income to everyone, you can’t
    make that offer global.”

    – Paul Krugman

    • So CAL Snowman

      “ALL economists are con men and political swindlers”

      – So CAL Snowman

      • JohnEngelman

        Economists cannot prove their theories with controlled, repeatable experiments the way chemists and physicists can. We cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results.

        • So CAL Snowman

          That’s because economics isn’t science.

          • Social science, which I think should be called something other than “science” so as not to confuse it with a hard science, but something a little more “hard” than some discipline in the humanities.

          • So CAL Snowman

            Eh, 95% of economics is common sense.

          • MBlanc46

            “Social disciplines” is what social psychologist Milt Rosenberg used to call them.

          • JohnEngelman

            Economics is less rigorous than the experimental sciences.

            Nevertheless, it can be demonstrated that during the twentieth century the job market and the stock market have usually done better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. There has usually been more growth in the per capita gross domestic product adjusted to 1996 dollars too.

          • MikeofAges

            Too small a sample size, and too ambiguous. Don’t forget, the Rust Bowl followed eight years of Kennedy-Johnson. Some would call the collapse of 2008 the ultimate denouement of the Clinton economy. Some would go back further and call it the collapse of the Reagan economy. After four years of Carter, the economy was a wreck. Truth is, no one knows. Why do you think you do, that you have some special insight into the realm of cause and effect that no one else has?

          • JohnEngelman

            The economic history of the United States during the twentieth century is not an ambiguous and small sample.

            After eight years of Kennedy and Johnson average wages continued to grow until the inflationary recession of 1974. This was caused by the OPEC Oil Embargo of 1973.

            Under Jimmy Carter there were more jobs created per year than under Ronald Reagan, and much less deficit spending.

            The inflation and gasoline lines of 1980 were caused by the Iranian Revolution of 1979. President Carter was not responsible for that.

          • MikeofAges

            It is inherently a small sample, because there is only one United States. You cannot compare the experience of the United States under the policies and political exigencies which actually existed to other comparatives operating under other policies and experiencing different exigencies because there aren’t any comparatives. Just since 1945, the United States has had 12 different presidents all taking office under different circumstances and times determined by the election cycle, death (Johnson) or political circumstances (Ford) all unrelated to economic conditions. Different parties have controlled each house of congress at different times. You’re making cause and effect too simple. The deindustrialization process which characterized the 1970s began before 1974. The 1970s were an unhappy time for a number of reasons. I was there.

          • Sick of it

            There is a science to economics, but that’s not what most economists are involved in. Similarly, there is actual science found in Anthropology, but the moronic Marxists dominate the field.

      • I can think of one who you might consider an exception to your rule.

        • So CAL Snowman

          Zero Hedge for life baby.

          • I was thinking more along the lines of Dave Brat, but 0H has a lot on the ball too.

          • So CAL Snowman

            I’m going to go ahead and wait for Brat to actually do something before showering him with adulation. Tea Party darling displaces a Repub incumbent and everyone goes bananas. I’ve seen that script before so excuse me if i’m a bit skeptical of Brat’s ability to do anything more than sit on his butt and collect a sweet government do nothing paycheck.

          • “I’ve seen that script before”

            To wit: The subject of this thread, Rand Paul, even though he didn’t beat an incumbent.

            I think the big difference is that Brat owes no special interest anything, and his win had nothing to do with the national TPM organizations, just the local ones and individual voters that consider themselves part of the movement.

            I don’t blame you for your wait-and-see skepticism at all.

    • Bossman

      The USA does not have “open immigration.” It is easier for a Hispanic to go to Canada than it is to go to the USA.

      • Wirbelwind1

        Is it? I figured it would be easier to travel 10-20 miles into the SW than a thousand miles or so into Canada. Perhaps if Canada had a million invaders a year their rosy outlook towards immigration would change.

        • Bossman

          I’m referring to legal immigration. Many Hispanics go to Canada but for some strange reason when they go there, they become invisible. Nobody knows how many of them are in Canada.

    • MBlanc46

      When and where did Krugman say that? We need to start putting on 30-second TV spots and billboards.

      • So CAL Snowman

        I know right? It caught me by surprise as well.

    • antiquesunlight

      Wow, Paul Krugman actually said something that made sense once. Cool.

      • JohnEngelman

        Paul Krugman always makes sense. I cannot remember when I have disagreed with one of his columns.

  • TruthBeTold

    The pro-invasion people are brainstorming reasons to allow the invasion to continue.

    Last week, the WSJ ran a piece on why Republicans should embrace immigration reform.

    They’re all trying to find an argument that will convince the gullible masses that population replacement is good for them, good for business, and good for America.

  • Rand’s flip flop on immigration tells the whole story. He’s a SELL OUT to the big money globalists, pandering to their desire for cheap labor, just like most Republicans. His libertarian principles are a mile wide and an inch deep. He watched his father stuggle to gain traction for his runs for the presidency and he’s learned not to do like dear old dad.

    The libertarian fairy tale about immigrants is demolished by this article. We don’t need the Rothbard/Mises/Rockwell libertarians; we need nationalists who understand that a clusterfreak of races is a country, but it is not a NATION. Whites must proceed forward with building our own nation within a nation by rejecting every aspect of the globalist agenda.

    • Thing is, I think Murray Rothbard had a pretty good head on his shoulder, and compared to Lew Rockwell, actually believed in at least a soft form of white racial identity. It was Rothbard’s glowing review of Sam Francis’s Beautiful Losers in RRR where I first heard about this Samuel Francis.

      unz (dot) org/Publication/RothbardRockwellReport-1994jul-00011

    • TruthBeTold

      He’s a SELL OUT to the big money globalists, pandering to their desire for cheap labor, just like most Republicans.

      Did he take any trips to the middle east before he refined his position?

  • De Doc

    That’s one of the primary issues I disagree on vehemently with the Libertarian position. At the turn of the 20th century and earlier immigrants had a real stake in coming to the US. It was a genuine risk with no guarantee that they’d have all sorts of social services to fall back upon, if they could not find a means to a living. If they failed, they usually went home. As it stands now, there is virtually nothing keeping them away, even if they enter illegally. Without vigorous enforcement immigration laws are useless. The hopeful, productive, White European immigrant seeking to blend into the melting pot no longer exists and that is where the Rand Paul’s of the world are woefully misguided.

    • TruthBeTold

      They go beyond open border. They want no borders. Free movement of people (labor).

  • M.Magog

    I am so sick of traitors like this. Either they are on the left and they KNOW they are lying to us. or they are like this idiot and they lie to themselves and us. I respect the lyres on the left MORE, at least they KNOW they are lying!

  • alex

    It may sound far fetched but I wouldn’t be surprised if neither Rand Paul nor Paul Ryan had any illusions about blacks and Hispanics. Perhaps they mouth politically correct platitudes about immigrants and minorities to attract white independents who still believe in racial equality.

  • If the sort of pictured individuals made a place more prosperous, then Detroit and most major inner cities would be the economic engines of the world today.

  • MBlanc46

    I don’t think that Rand Paul has much interest in making theoretically true statements about immigrant desires. I think he’s trying to craft a political message that squares the circle of the corporate Repub desire for cheap labor and the populist Repub opposition to mass immigration, and maybe pick up a few Hispanic votes to boot. It’s political rhetoric, not sociology.

  • MBlanc46

    It’s comforting to know that Ayn Rand finds me despicable.

    • She would despise me, too, and I’m not libertarian.

  • I hope his stance on immigration costs this phoney reelection.

  • Biff_Maliboo

    Welp, time for the Heritage Foundation to print a few million more Pocket Constitutions en Espanol!

    Better order some American flag lapel pins, too.

  • Marc Zuckurburg

    Pay to the order of Rand Paul, an undisclosed amount of money. Not too little to where he won’t do what I want him to do, but not too much to where he thinks he can rest on his laurels. I have to treat my politicians like pimps treat their prostitutes.

    Signed,

    Marc Zuckurburg.

  • LHathaway

    lol, 20% of White Nationalists have a ‘positive view of capitalism’ by reading them. My, it’s one big happy party. . .

    They’re all right. . there is one party in control of the government. It’s a one party system, composed of those who are all ‘fighting the system’. What self-delusion.

  • jayvbellis

    Glad to see political realists on our side turning very strongly in Rand Paul. He’s being slammed as just another Jack Kemp – PC to the max, pandering endlessly to any and all non Whites, just adding some free market spin that will supposedly help the poor, non White masses more than the Lib welfare state.

    Hope Rand Paul tries this act in the New South Africa and suffers the fate of Amy Biehl. We should encourage the worst Blacks in Africa to go for human sacrifice and canabalism for our worst Liberals/Libertarians like Rand Paul or that new race mixing mayor of New York City who changed his name to sound like a tough Italian.

    • What are you talking about? AR has treated Rand Paul like a pariah for more than a year, going on a year and a quarter. You must have AR confused with one of those other websites that I hear is still making excuse after excuse for RP.

      • jayvbellis

        Yes. That’s what I said. Amren and the racial realist, immigration restrictionist Right has turned very strongly against Rand Paul and that’s a good thing.

        For some reason, regular folks in Kentucky haven’t seemed to get the message and Rand Paul mostly gets a free pass in his home state. That’s got to change.

      • jayvbellis

        No, I stated that Amren and other race realist, alternative Right sights HAVE turned strongly against Rand Paul.

        But, regular folks in Kentucky haven’t apparently got the message yet. The media and Conservative Inc, Rupert Murdoch are covering for Rand.

  • DelmarJackson

    Here is my explanation. Immigration is a racket and those in favor of it generally benefit in one or more of 3 ways:
    Profit. Power.Punishment.
    Libertarians benefit from immigration by punishment. They are in favor of massive immigration because it will bankrupt the nation even faster and end social programs that Libertarians are hostile to. Instead of being a man and debating why they are against social programs, they are willing to use immigration to turn the nation into a 3rd world shi*hole just to gain from the end of social programs from their being abused and bankrupted by endless immigration.
    Libertarians are also very shallow thinkers on immigration. They have never given any thought how the millions of 3rd world immigrants they ere encouraging to come here will ever be a cause for small government. In fact, once the nation is balkanized and we become a tribal society, it will take a strong central government to hold things together, along with the loss of our current personal liberties.
    Libertarianism sounds wonderful in the classroom, and I credit Ron Paul 100 % for awakening the nation to the fraud of the federal reserve, and they are right on many issues, but hearing Rand Paul blather on how he thinks a bilingual nation is a great idea, or how great Hispanics are because everywhere he goes, Hispanics are the only ones he sees working makes me lose al respect for rand paul.
    maybe someone should ask him if there may be alternate reasons for the lack of non Hispanics in certain jobs The fact that rand and so many other libertarians are so shallow thinkers on immigration is a warning sign.

  • Vito Powers

    why do Libertarians insist on being such Free Market jackasses when it comes to immigration? These fools truly have to get beyond their pre-Industrial Revolution mindset.

    Yes, it is the Welfare State that is the magnet that is drawing immigrants here. What is so difficult to accept?

  • antiquesunlight

    “Forty-one percent of blacks and 55% of whites had ‘a positive reaction’ to the word ‘capitalism.'”

    I’m surprised forty-one percent of blacks know what capitalism is.

  • WR_the_realist

    We’ve got to stop expecting assimilation when all of the factors that once created assimilation are now absent.

    He hit that nail on the head. It used to be that immigrants we’re dumped into English only classrooms and expected to sink or swim. Nearly all swam. Now they get “bilingual” (Spanish only) education all the way through high school. Now we have driver’s license exams in multiple languages, and innumerable Spanish language radio stations and TV shows. In the past we had immigrants from Latvia to Italy, but they were almost all white, so after a generation or two they could identify with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison being their forefathers. That can’t happen with Koreans and Somalians.

  • “Fifty-seven percent of Mexican immigrants receive some form of welfare, compared with 6% of U.K. immigrants.”

    Since when did our government start allowing immigrants from Europe?

  • miseshayekrothbard

    This is an important argument to make. Rand Paul seems to have forgotten the Friedman maxim and wants to get at least one out of two libertarian reforms. However, the idea that open borders are bad is patently ridiculous. There were open borders for all of history up to the 1900s or so. There was not a welfare state that attracts filth. In all those times, there were open borders, but not large-scale intermixing like there is today.

    Peoples have always intermixed for centuries. Certainly, there was no large scale intermixing like we see today, however a polity like Holland has a long history of various peoples intermixing. Shipping crews also showed large amounts of cultural intermixing.

    It seems than conscious whites seem more interested in closing borders than opposing welfare, which would make libertarian economist Faustino Ballvé right in saying that nationalism and socialism necessarily intersect.

  • miseshayekrothbard

    I lost my train of thought in the comment before this, however I noted a few weeks ago that the northern California secession movement appears to have some elements of white consciousness in it. Compared to the rest of California, it is quite more white. The people there claim to be seceding for political and economic reason,s but perhaps the underlying reason is that whites can not and do not wish to be government by Hispanics and their hipster white marxist supporters.

  • Truth Teller

    He was on TV today, Sunday 6/21 advocating for a greatly expanded visa program.

  • BillMillerTime

    Most people are “libertarian” most of the time. Most of us enter into contracts voluntarily based on mutual benefit, and resent being forced into someone else’s mold. Most of us – except of course Obamunists – fully expect to pay our own way and manage our own affairs.

    And of course the moment that any white nationalist – even and perhaps especially a nationalist socialist – is anywhere charged with a thought crime, he instantly becomes the most ardent “libertarian” you ever did meet. “How dare someone tell *me* how to live, what I can say, what I can publish, how I can think…” And once he beats the rap, he will go back to damning libertarians as selfish wicked individualists. Just as hypocrisy is the homage that virtue pays to vice, so oblivious shamelessness is invariably the handmaiden of hypocrisy.

    Now of course we don’t actually call ourselves “libertarian.” We simply believe that we should be free to speak our minds; publish our books; hold our conferences; freely associate or not associate in all things personal and commercial as we see fit; buy, sell and hold property subject to whatever deed covenants that we so desire.

  • Evette Coutier

    Rand Paul is a political opportunist pretending to be a limited government libertarian. He’s another political hack looking to advance his career at the expense of white America.