Rand Paul’s Sell-Out is Absolutely Undeniably Complete: Now Says Lincoln was “One of Our Greatests Presidents”

The Jack Hunter fiasco fall-out continues. Now it has completely finished off Rand Paul as well. Someone please give Rand a Testosterone injection.  He is clearly running low. For those who have argued that Rand Paul was just making rhetorical concessions as part of “playing the game” but was still stealthily one of us, I thought that argument lost credibility when

1) he babbled PC platitudes before a Howard University audience, or

2) spouted PC immigration boosterism before a Hispanic organization, or

3) offered Israel a security guarantee to placate the neocons (You see how well that worked out don’t you?)

but I could see that some still held out hope. Gentlemen, I’m sorry to inform you, but it’s time to give it up. It’s over. Rand Paul is done. (Here is the original HuffPo interview.)

“I’m not a fan of secession,” Paul told Fineman. “I think the things he said about John Wilkes Booth are absolutely stupid. I think Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents.”

I actually don’t doubt that Rand Paul still stealtily holds views very similar to his father’s. That is the impression he gave when he stumped for his father in 2008, before he ran for Senate, but what good do those stealth views do for us? Does anyone think that Rand is going to stealthily get himself elected to the White House and then on day one declare “Ha! I fooled you!” and start vetoing all unconstitutional spending (almost all of it), or shutter the Fed, or grant the South a free pass to leave the Union? At best he is going to marginally tax less, marginally spend less, and marginally pull back on our foreign policy adventurism, because he has talked himself into a corner. So we pay slightly less in taxes and the country financially collapses in 2035 instead of 2030. Whoopee!

This is why I have such an aversion to rhetorical concessions. I don’t have a problem with stylistic concessions. I don’t have a problem massaging how you say certain things. I don’t have a problem with “playing the game” (competing in a GOP primary or being active in the party for example) to a degree. I don’t have a problem conceding the political reality as it actually is on the ground. In fact, I have always been very realistic about the sorry state of our present political reality.

It is partially because our reality is so sorry that rhetoric matters so much. Because at this point it’s all we got. Therefore we have to be willing to wage the rhetorical battle and make some headway there before the political battle will matter. When a national politician with Presidential aspirations can say to a HuffPo reporter “Darn right I think Lincoln was a tyrant and secession is a perfectly legal option! If I didn’t I wouldn’t be a propper conservative.” and the “right” doesn’t go into spastic denunciations, then we will have made some progress.

At this point, ours is primarily a rhetorical battle whether everyone wants to accept this fact or not.

Note: For those who say we are overdoing the Hunter story, you’re wrong. Fighting the PC Thought Police is the field of battle right now.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

38 thoughts on “Rand Paul’s Sell-Out is Absolutely Undeniably Complete: Now Says Lincoln was “One of Our Greatests Presidents”

  1. Feltan

    I take exception as I have in the past: promoting secession in not a litmus test of being a conservative.

    I understand why some of the posters here feel that way. However, you really have to acknowledge that promoting secession is a minority viewpoint, and there is a valid conservative path that does not include secession. If you make that “the” litmus test, then the paleo population you are likely to get support from must drop a fraction of a percent of the population.


  2. MJK

    Well stated, Red! I also enjoyed you rebuttal to Daniel McCarthy’s very lame, wimpy, and limp wristed defense of the now Southern Appeaser.

    What is this nonsense McCarthy posited about the historical status of whites in this country excludes us from celebrating that aspect of ourselves. What nonsense! I find much of what McCarthy writes today off the mark, purposefully idiosyncratic to the point of muddled, and disingenuous to some extent.

    For those who say we are overdoing the Hunter story, you’re wrong. Fighting the PC Thought Police is the field of battle right now.

    SPOT ON! Dr. Phillips…

  3. westie

    I think we have crossed the Rubicon regarding succession and the only question is where do we draw the boundaries!

  4. HarrisonBergeron2

    Just goes to show that it is impossible to participate in the national government without submitting to the national ideology.

    Pro-Lincoln means pro-centralization, which is the antithesis of liberty and tradition.

  5. Feltan


    Aren’t there acceptable 3rd Parties that do not embrace the centralization we deplore? If there is an acceptable third party, is it not possible to politically participate at a national level?


  6. Matt Weber

    I don’t think it has to do with secession specifically. No one demonizes Vermont because they wanted to secede due to the Fugitive Slave Acts. The issue is simple: Lincoln freed the slaves. The South wanted to secede because of slavery. Even people who know about Lincolns more…totalitarian tendencies will say it was all worth it because he freed the slaves. If you want to argue something, argue that slavery wasn’t the greatest crime ever perpetrated against a segment of humanity. Otherwise, Lincoln remains a saint.

  7. Pingback: Red Phillips: Rand Paul’s Sell-Out is Absolutely Undeniably Complete | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

  8. HarrisonBergeron2


    I wish. Problem is, the ONLY way the National Security State will let you play is if you support it.

    Look at Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. In a Weekly Standard (??!!) interview, he expressed his support for “humanitarian wars.”

    In other words, meet the new boss…

  9. RedPhillips Post author

    ‘Aren’t there acceptable 3rd Parties that do not embrace the centralization we deplore? If there is an acceptable third party, is it not possible to politically participate at a national level?”

    Feltan, the Constitution Party does not accept centralization, and since the cast of characters that might seek the GOP nomination is so pathetic, it looks like the CP is our only hope for an acceptable candidate. (Unless Tom Woods runs for the LP nomination.)

  10. Savrola

    Of course the Constitution Party accepts centralization. It strives to be on the ballot in all 50 states.

    That’s truly asinine. Why would any secessionist support a national party?

  11. Weaver


    Alaskan Independence Party is affiliated with the CP, so obviously the CP tolerates secession.

    Elections aren’t necessarily about winning: Just fielding a candidate gets ideas out and reinvigorates activists. It’s just a parade, not something to take seriously, as you know.

    However the CP provided a valuable platform for Tancredo. Machiavelli wrote that if you march off to war (meaning the election), others will follow. Having the CP structure creates a potential for a sudden larger movement I think.

    Anyway, so long as people raise their children well, the state hasn’t won. That’s the real battle, aside from immigration.

  12. Weaver


    political secession isn’t the only form of secession.

    I don’t understand what you wouldn’t secede from in mainstream society. If you send your children to public schools, they’ll learn false values. If you let them join the military, they’ll possibly serve in a war you don’t agree with. I respect those who join for the right reasons, but I mean to say they won’t have a choice once joined up.

    If you belong to a mainstream church, they’ll preach against the Bible.

    If you donate to the local library, it’ll gather books that oppose you.

    If you build a monument in your city, it’ll get taken down if it reflects your values.

    What is there to join? Native Americans (meaning those who identify with the Founders) are at a disadvantage if every other ethnic group acts for its own interests while we act for the whole.

    There must be some form of secession for those who wish to preserve any sense of identity.

  13. laughin

    The fact that this writer thinks acknowledging that Lincoln was a great president and not endorsing toasting his assassin is “PC” is just sad. Maybe it’s just Southern pride/inferiority complex taken too far, rationalized with bad rehashed neo-Confederate arguments about how slavery was this little thing that had nothing to do with the Civil War

  14. Sempronius

    Secession is foolish. It makes less sense today than it did in the 19th century.

    There are only two or three other possibilities as I see things.

  15. Feltan


    Interesting article. However, a bit too much gloom and doom. It fails to note that, despite all the failures, a Federal Republic system of Government has provided the framework for the single greatest nation on earth and unheard of liberties prior to its creation.

    That being said, many of the points are self-evident.

    As the saying goes, a representative democracy as a form of government totally sucks — except all the alternatives suck worse.


  16. Feltan


    But what do you do when you do secede? If you have absolutely no faith in any institution as they currently exist, why would you all of a sudden have faith in the institutions of a newly created state that is, after all, a subset of the larger state you wish to leave.

    You can go into turtle mode, and ignore the society around you — but that society will still impact you and your family.

    The only way I see your vision coming into being is if you get to evict any person or institution that is at odds with your view. Remember, if by some miracle we woke up tomorrow and the Confederate States of America was a nation, the SPLC would still be there; politicians would still be self-serving, and the vast masses of low information voters would still gather to feed at the public trough.


  17. Weaver

    Feltan are we the “greatest nation”? Personally, I’d settle for a place recognisable as home.

    The US has since WWII encouraged left-wing movements in Europe and elsewhere. We’ve been a major force in the decline of Western Civilisation – much to make amends for. What’s landing on the Moon compared with that?

    Iceland and Switzerland are two states older than the US that you couldn’t disapprove of, so the US is not “the first” free nation.

    I think secession from Britain was a mistake. As Brits we at least held an identity. A future secession would be positive if it reconnected with its roots. The past secession could have been positive… It turned out badly… The experiment should be attempted a second time.

    Freedom is nice… But there are priorities higher than freedom. And with a traditional society, where citizens are voluntarily responsible, they can enjoy a much greater freedom. Society only thrives where people control themselves. This can happen either with laws or with voluntary culture. A barbaric “free from culture” society like ours requires laws to control it. That’s where we’re currently headed.

    I don’t ignore the society around me. I am sick of how family members (recent ancestors, incl still living ones) helped one school or one library or some other community area or another only to have society transformed in ways they oppose.

    They are they ones embracing a delusion. Having a school named after you means nothing if the children there are taught to hate you.

    Particular ties are wonderful… when a population has some connection with you. Present society is too fluid. Localism can’t function like that. Nationalism fills the void.

    Definitions I’m using (for clarity):

    Nation = a people
    State = a government

  18. Weaver

    If you build a community that knows its history, is better educated, more fit, more motivated than the rest of society; that elite is at an advantage.

    That starts with turtle mode. Turtle mode isn’t the end; it’s the beginning.

  19. RedPhillips Post author

    “Secession is foolish. It makes less sense today than it did in the 19th century.”

    Semp., the primary issue is not whether secession is wise or foolish (we disagree on that), but whether it is legal/legitimate. This is very fundamental to how you understand the nature of the Republic as originally established.

  20. RedPhillips Post author

    “Of course the Constitution Party accepts centralization. It strives to be on the ballot in all 50 states.

    That’s truly asinine. Why would any secessionist support a national party?”

    Actually Sav, I agree that a regional conservative party would be a good idea. A Southern Party has been tried in the recent past, but it was hampered by internal division.

  21. RedPhillips Post author

    “rationalized with bad rehashed neo-Confederate arguments about how slavery was this little thing that had nothing to do with the Civil War”

    laughin, I have never denied that slavery had a lot to do with secession, but there was one and only one cause of the War, Lincoln invaded us. No invasion, no War. And the invasion was not to free the slaves as Lincoln made abundantly clear. It was to “save the union.” To conflate the causes of secession with the causes of the War is to accept the Yankee interpretation that secession was an act of war.

    The reason Lincoln matters is because it gets at a very fundamental issue of how you view the nature of the Republic as originally founded. It is also a marker of to what degree your mind is captured by PC. The slavery Lincoln fetishists need to worry about is their own thoughtslavery.

  22. Weaver


    The only way I see your vision coming into being is if you get to evict any person or institution that is at odds with your view.

    Let me phrase it this way:

    Chinese-Americans who retain their heritage have an advantage over whites who do not. They don’t require a nation-state to thrive here.

    If South Carolina secedes, it can tolerate other groups within it. What’s important is that it serves the interests of natives such as, first of all, tolerating our heritage, and to some degree promoting it.

    The nation-state might be the ideal, but we don’t have to bring that to a reality. Depending on the polity, you’d pursue differing strategies. No polity endures forever. Furthermore you can have a diverse nation-state if only granting citizenship to those within the nation.

    You can look at Greek or Italian city-states, Venice especially: foreign residents are common. Venice was strongly nationalistic, and it was very cosmopolitan. Citizens and resident foreigners were granted nearly identical rights. Venetians enjoyed trading advantages, and of course foreigners couldn’t meddle politically.

    For South Carolina if you had a thousand Korean refugees with some unique technical skills, you could grant them residence without granting citizenship. They could then serve the state with work, teach locals: it’d be mutually beneficial. South Carolina wouldn’t then need to make those Koreans citizens. It ought to simply treat them well. They’d retain Korean citizenship; they’d be free to do anything they pleased so long as not interfering with the political interests of the state. I don’t think half-Venetians were granted citizenship.

    Political secession isn’t the only path. People should be fluid in their thinking. Nothing scary or dramatic needs to happen. It starts with the founding of new institutions, seceding culturally, restoring roots, restoring health, and then acting towards legitimate interests. Most other ethnic groups in America already have some such institutions.

    “Eurocentric” was the term Sam Francis once used for an American policy that promoted American interests. He didn’t demand a 100% white America.

    The South obviously is made up of two nations: black and white, as well as Amerindians. Obviously it is not desired to hinder another group. “Eurocentrism” includes simply not joining in these crazy wars, not importing millions of foreigners, not selling our assets to transnational corporations, etc.

    If we decide the South is too diverse, due to history perhaps blacks and whites don’t trust each other, then there are other parts of the US. Whatever the solution, progress starts with cultural secession.

  23. Sempronius

    “I agree that a regional conservative party would be a good idea. A Southern Party has been tried in the recent past, but it was hampered by internal division.

    This was one of my several alternative options Red.

    I wouldn’t call it a Southern party though. I would look forward to an extra-Southern appeal sometime in the future. And I would avoid any nomenclature involving ol’ Jesus or the term conservative. Something banal or non-political would be optimal.

  24. Feltan

    “… but there was one and only one cause of the War, Lincoln invaded us. No invasion, no War.”


    To be clear, this only happened after a little incident at Charleston harbor. :-)

    The invasion didn’t happen until shots had been fired and numerous Federal facilities were seized. I just finished reading “Gods and Generals” again, and was reminded of the utter confusion as Southern states grabbed Federal forts and depots while those loyal to the Union tried to make their way North, not always successfully.

    I think it is a bit less than candid to use the word “invasion” unless you acknowledge that it was provoked.


  25. C Bowen/Hawthorne

    The issue was troops passing through/invading Virginia–that is what started the war as we know it. Lincoln either a) fumbled a local vote, or b) intentionally wanted Virginia to vote for secession to insure war with Virginia for other political ends. (ooh-ooh, ask me which one I think!)

    The issue was Virginia politics–none of this “us” from states behind the Virginia wall–real tough guys with a plan. The invasion was in Virginia–the pawn in the middle.

  26. Savrola

    It’s really not hard to start a political party.

    First you steal everyone’s mailing lists, get maybe 10 million names.

    Then you pick your president, vice president, senate and house bloc candidates. Four to eight years in advance.

    Then you circulate the ticket, and announce that when 10 million people have signed on to vote for this ticket, in all 50 states, the party will run the ticket for office.

    Ballot access at this point, would be easy.

    Keep name, and platform generic and populist, give no interviews to the media, and promote only by gonzo means and you’re off to the races.

  27. Savrola

    Of course you’d need a committed cadre of 200-2000 discipline young men who don’t currently exist, to pull it off.

    So it’s really quite impossible.

  28. RedPhillips Post author

    “To be clear, this only happened after a little incident at Charleston harbor.”

    Feltan, the Union was attempting to reprovision a fort that was no longer in their territory. This is an act of war, and the South had every right to prevent it by force. That said, it was a ploy by Lincoln to get the South to fire the first shot because he needed that to rally the folks in the North who prior to that were not necessarily on board for a war. And it obviously worked because people are still bringing it up to this day.

    Also, this whole issue demonstrates a misunderstanding of the issue of territorial secession. When a territory secedes, the territory comes with it. Go figure. This notion that a territory can secede but “federal” land within the territory gets to remain federal is silly. The bond has been dissolved. Federal land obviously reverts to the state.

  29. RedPhillips Post author

    “for the first time in a generation, a neocon mob yelled jump, and an American said no–in his own gonzo way.”

    CB, do you mean Rand Paul by not firing Hunter? Rand gets a little credit for not canning Hunter, but not nearly enough to make up for caving on secession and Lincoln. His dad never caved on those two issues.

    Also, I don’t think Hunter is at all a lightweight. His videos and articles reveal an intelligent and thoughtful paleocon/libertarian. What has been demonstrated by this affair is cravenness, not that he is a lightweight.

  30. Savrola

    Well he did issue that debt free currency.

    I view Lincoln in much the same way as Hitler.

    Maybe Rand does too.

  31. Feltan



    Once the first cannon ball was fired at Charleston, the issue changed from the right to secede to rebellion. You can try to spin it any way you wish, but if the CSA had taken a non-violent approach and, say, just stopped paying taxes — Lincoln would have had little rationale or support to march south.

    The Confederacy can’t on one hand play the aggrieved and invaded victim of Federal aggression, while on the other hand starting a shooting war.


  32. Weaver

    The first shot was a warning shot. States back then were not seen as they are today. Back then you didn’t have Americans. You had South Carolinians, Georgians, etc. Even the previous President of United States thought war couldn’t be declared against individual states.

    The casus belli here is propaganda. It doesn’t justify war in this case, and it absolutely doesn’t justify total war and invasion.

    During the Cold War, I’m sure the US and Russia had to downplay quite a number of events that could have been used as a casus belli. Mexico and the US also likely have experienced some technical breach of sovereignty.

  33. C Bowen/Hawthorne


    Yes, of course–the real story is classic Rand not throwing Hunter to the wolves, yet you focus on Rand muddling some line about Lincoln (forest/trees.)

    As I wrote on HB’s thread, there were some easy ways to play by the PC rules (apologize for youthful theater) but keep the moral high ground and shred his detractors. He had years to prepare for this moment and blew it.

    He could have said that there was an illegal war going on; voices of dissent were being systematically silenced and he did what he thought he had to do to stitch an audience together to promote a set of core values: non-interventionism … he could have gotten a dig in at the neoconservatives for advocating for an illegal war using leaks and deceptions that were killing his fellow Southerners, of all races.

    But instead he failed at the only real test–can you get back on offense? Can you turn the table from accused to accuser?

    I actually feel sorry for the guys like Richwine or Robert Stacy McCain who have a family and didn’t realize they had crossed some line and then are cut loose or end up a shadow of their former self.

    Hunter was actually called up to the show without a plan.

    Hunter, and rest of us, should always remember that Hiroshima, Nagasaki–those were crimes. Invading Iraq, after 10 years of starvation, was a crime. Our petty little sins dabbling in populism are nothing compared to the horrors sanctioned by the likes of the Kristol’s et al. Ron Paul couldn’t sell that; Rand Paul at least tries; Hunter doesn’t even understand why he did the things he did.

    Maybe its just me, but when I go to the Conservative Inc sites, any chance I get I wave the bloody shirt of Iraq and humiliate the bed wetters as best I can–especially the tough guys who like to tell me how I never served and wasn’t there.

    Hunter could have ‘sold’ all that, but instead he crumpled up into the fetal position which I guess was his plan.

  34. RedPhillips Post author

    Hunter was definitely unprepared. This is surprising because he should have known this was coming.

    I don’t necessarily find that questioning the interventionists about Iraq helps much. Many of them still think it was noble and necessary given what we “knew” at the time. They may actually know it was a farce in their own minds, but they still publically maintain that we were right. It is something they were so heavily invested in at the time that they can’t let go. I do, however, think that pointing out that their’s is the position that reflects fear and weakness, not ours, tweaks them and gets them thinking.

    And BTW, I would feel sorry for Stacy McCain if he hadn’t so completely gone over to the dark side. He’s been really on the Snowden is a kook bandwagon. What a waste.

  35. C Bowen/Hawthorne


    Never said anything about questioning. Waive the bloody shirt in their treasonous faces–was more my angle.

  36. SoCal Patriot

    @ Feltan 13 Jul 2013 at 5:32 A.M.,

    “…promoting secession in not a litmus test of being a conservative…”

    While actively ‘promoting’ secession may not be a necessary litmus test for those claiming to be authentically conservative,admitting that the states do,in fact,possess the constitutional ( and moral ) right to secede,if they understandably choose to do so,certainly is.

    @ Weaver 14 Jul 2013 at 6:00 P.M.,

    “…Society only thrives where people control themselves…”

    That leaves out the dope fiends;self-control is something that is very foreign to them.You dig what I’m sayin’,my man!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>