David Frum is Troubled by Rand Paul …

… or more precisely that the “conservative” establishment didn’t police him out of the ranks.

Rand Paul’s victory in the Kentucky Republican primary is obviously a depressing event for those who support strong national defense and rational conservative politics…

How is it that the GOP has lost its antibodies against a candidate like Rand Paul? In the past few months, we have seen GOP conservatives rally against Utah Sen. Bob Bennett. There has been no similar rallying against Rand Paul: no ads by well-funded out-of-state groups. Some senior Republicans, like former VP Dick Cheney, indicated a preference for opponent Trey Grayson. But despite Paul’s self-presentation as “anti-establishment,” the D.C. conservative establishment by and large made its peace with him. It is this acquiescence – even more than Paul’s own nomination – that is the most ominous news from tonight’s vote.

I’m soooo… glad we have David Frum around to tell us yahoos in flyover country what conservative politics are “rational.” That whole following the Constitution as originally intended thingy is just so irrational.

Here is something TAC has to say on the matter.

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

15 thoughts on “David Frum is Troubled by Rand Paul …

  1. Eric Treanor

    If a restaurant owner agrees not to have public roads or sidewalks approaching his place of business and/or his home; not to use any public works of any kind, including water, sewage, or electricity; not to use or pollute public air; not to depend upon public law enforcement or public firefighters; not to interact with or be defended by any local, state, or federal agencies of any sort; not to use federal currency; not to hire anyone educated by the public education system; not to use any technology developed or built with public money (including the Internet); not to use any products supplied to him using public infrastructure, etc., etc., etc., then, sure, let him discriminate as he sees fit.

    Point: the distinctions that libertarians make between the public and private sectors simply don’t hold up. Our society is interdependent beyond all reckoning. If a business owner want to enjoy the benefits of operating in a functioning society, he must agree to serve that society. The notion that someone can operate independent of the public sector and therefore has no obligation to serve it without regard to race, religion, etc., is absurd on its face.

    For this reason Mr. Frum correctly says that “it’s hard to think of a more settled controversy than the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

    Rand is an ideologue and a threat to fundamental principles of decency, reason, and the law. Mr. Frum is also correct to see that, as a threat, he will do far more harm to Republicans than to Democrats.

  2. Captainchaos

    David Frum is in favor of racial mongrelization for Whites and racial purity for Jews. In the meantime (before our genocide via mongrelization), we are to dutifully serve G_d’s Chosen by smashing Israel’s regional enemies. Our reward for doing just that? Mongrelization.

    Doesn’t that just hit you as the best thing going, Red?

    P.S. Ayn Rand exhorted deracinated individualism for the goyim, tribal collectivism for Jews. Her inner circle was almost exclusively Jewish. She claimed we must support Israel unabashedly as Arabs were little better than subhumans. Libertarianism is moron’s fodder for lemmings.

  3. Captainchaos

    David Irving on the machinations of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, a Jew, in concert with Roosevelt, to push America into the war with Germany:

    “”Tortured by Hitler as no nation has ever been in modern times,” he continued, “and advertised by him as his foremost enemy, we are refused by those who fight him the chance of seeing our name and our flag appear amongst those arrayed against him.” Artfully associating the anti-Zionists with the other enemies populating Mr. Churchill’s mind, Weizmann assured him that he knew this exclusion was not of his own [Churchill's] doing. “It is the work of people who were responsible for Munich and for the 1939 White Paper on Palestine.” After describing his four-month tour in the United States, Weizmann came to his real sales pitch. There’s only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand to a man for Great Britain and a policy of all-out aid to her: the five million American Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor Lehman [of New York State], Justice Felix Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies.” British statesmen themselves, he reminded Churchill, had often acknowledged that it was those Jews who has effectively brought the United States into the war in 1917. “They are keen to do it, and may do it again.”

    “But,” he admonished, “you are dealing with human beings, with flesh and blood. And the most elementary feeling of self- respect sets limits to service, however willing, if the response is nothing but rebuffs and humiliation.” All that he was asking for now was a formation of a Jewish fighting force. That would be signal enough for the Jews of the United States.

    This is the kind of blackmail that Churchill had to put up with from the Zionists throughout the Second World War. And of course, when the blackmail didn’t work they set about assassinating our people in the Middle East. It’s an odd thing that is often forgotten by the admirers of Begin and Shamir and the rest of them, that when the rest of the world was fighting Hitler the Zionists in the Middle East were fighting us! They had nothing better to do with their time!

    Felix Frankfurter, in fact, crops up in the Japanese intercepts. Sure enough, on November 18, 1941, the Japanese found a man called Schmidt who had gone and had a long talk with Justice Felix Frankfurter. The message intercepted (by the U.S. Navy and decoded by them) is a telegram in code from Nomura in Washington to Tokyo describing his talks with Schmidt, who had seen Frankfurter on the evening of the eighteenth. Schmidt had said that only Hitler would benefit if a U.S.-Japanese war broke out. If Japan made the first move, the war would be popular in America. Frankfurter, however, said: “Germany had been smart in that she has consistently done everything possible to prevent arousing the United States. Therefore, regardless of how much the President tries to fan the anti-German flame, he cannot make the desired headway.”

    Now what a scandalous statement that is! Here’s the one country, Germany, trying to prevent a war and the other country – Roosevelt – neutral – trying to fan the flames of anti-German feeling to fuel the war. Yet it is the Germans who are called the criminals, and the Americans who do the prosecuting. And it all turns up in this Japanese signal about Frankfurter and another Austrian Jew called Schmidt.”

    http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/9/3/Irving261-286.html

    The very same Felix Frankfurter who facilitated the employment of many of his co-ethnics in the New Deal bureaucracies, whom came to be known as Felix’s “happy hot dogs.” The same Frankfurter who was intimately involved in behind-the-scenes lobbying to see to it that Brown v. Board of Education became the law of the land.

    The Jews desire our total racial dismemberment. But I take it ya’ll knew that already. Are you certain those filthy Krauts didn’t have the right idea?

  4. RedPhillips Post author

    CC, the topic of this thread is David Frum and Rand Paul. But that doesn’t seem to matter to you. I could make a post on the weather, and you would figure out a way to launch into some white nat tirade.

  5. Augustinian

    In Mr. Treanor’s post, if one were to replace ‘restaurant owner’ and ‘business owner’ with ‘private citizen’ (in regard to his own home), I think we can clearly see the threats to liberty posed by Cultural Marxist notions of equality, non-discrimination, etc.

    Yes, we live in an interdependent society, but these Jacobin ideals foisted upon us by the Left and its fellow-travelers are meant to achieve one thing: the absolute destruction of Western Christian civilisation.

  6. Bruce

    Red,

    The facts explained by CaptainChaos are more important to the future of America and western civilization than all other topics combined.

    While you rearrange the deck chairs on our rapidly sinking ship of state the Captain is exposing the root of our problem. He is a brave man. Learn from him.

  7. Eric Treanor

    Well, Augustinian, that’s a pretty big “IF.” The point is, we CAN’T apply “business owner” to “your private home.” The law doesn’t do that and never has. The government continues to distinguish between a place of business and a private residence, your paranoia notwithstanding. You’re talking cats and dogs.

    Using a straw man argument might make you feel better, but it’s irrelevant to the point I made.

  8. Eric Treanor

    For Red Phillips:

    You said:

    “Name me the judges who are prominent originalists. Better yet, name me the law school professors who are prominent originalists. (Maybe there are more than I know, but the most proponents of originalism that I know of are outside the profession.)”

    Where do you meet them, Red? The answer to that question is important.

    The reason nearly all jurists and law professors aren’t originalists is simple: originalism misapprehends the nature of interpretation. It’s impossible to get original intent—and not just because the authors are dead. The English language in your head is unlike the English language in anyone else’s head, and that difference is irreconcilable. To attempt interpretation from the premise of intent is not merely futile but actually counter-productive. It’s extremely inefficient to subject all speech and all writing to unknowable mysteries like intent. We understand as we understand and we proceed. For the most part, that works out all right. (There’s a famous essay about this called ‘The Intentional Fallacy”—I suggest you read it.)

    All communication is subject to interpretation. Indeed, one could argue that by communication we mean the exchange of interpretations. Were this not so, we would never misunderstand each other.

    Even the simplest expressions are subject to confusion. Case in point: “Pass the salt.” When you get hit in the face because someone throws the salt at you, can you blame them, really?

    But I don’t want to trivialize a serious point. The application of the Commerce Clause to civil rights is a reasonable reading of the Constitution, which is why it’s gone unchallenged. The Constitution makes it clear that the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since all commerce, in effect, is now not merely national but international, and (more to the point) cannot exist without interstate (read: federal) assistance (roads, etc.), the federal government is fulfilling its constitutional obligation when it opens Joe’s Cafe to everyone. If Joe wants to enjoy the benefits of a functioning society, Joe serves that society, without discrimination.

    Original intent undermines the rule of law because it makes the law dependent upon an intellectual impossibility.

    Maybe everyone always understands exactly what you mean exactly as you intend it. The rest of us—and that includes the Supreme Court—don’t have that luxury. To demand such of thing of this country is to condemn us to intellectual and moral paralysis.

  9. Matt Weber

    It’s not impossible to determine what the state assemblies thought when they were ratifying the Constitution. That the interstate commerce clause was not intended to prohibit discrimination is evident in that no one thought it did for the first 175 years; no state sought to bring its laws into accordance with that interpretation, and no federal initiative was undertaken to coerce them to.

    If you want to say that Originalism is flawed because the founders were horrible racists and we’re better than them, then say that. Honesty is a virtue, after all.

  10. Shane

    Eric…what are you talking about? Your argument has a logical flaw.

    Rand Paul doesn’t say that the business owner would not pay taxes. Thats what gives him the right to public access and other things, not the business owners personal beliefs. He says that the business owner makes decisions on who he will serve, hire and fire. That the business owner will do whats best for his business. That means he pays his light bill, his taxes help pay for the infrastructure you would deny him (as well as his personal taxes) and he pays for phone/internet connections. How would you deny him what the business has paid for? Paying taxes entitle you to the that access, not what you believe. All of this is in accord that the business owner is not receiving a grant or funding from the government in any way for his business. If the government pays any money into the business they then have a say so in its running. If not, they should not if it is not interstate.
    You are another person who has confused political correctness with freedom. Freedom means you reap what you sow. Good or bad. It all boils down to one question…Is our life our own. Are we free men/women or slaves. Citizens or subjects of the United States. Because freedom means you don’t have to like what the business represents or the owner thinks..as long as it doesn’t pick your pocket or break your leg…its none of your business. If you don’t like his/her policies/racism/sexism.etc. then don’t spend your money there.
    By the way a business that mistreats (discriminates) against his employees and customers would soon not have a business. Any business is about making money…personal feelings of the owner would make the business go under. See, natural selection does work.

  11. Chad

    David Frum is (or was) a writer for National Review.

    Read a National Review from the early 1990′s, and it will sound a lot like Rand Paul’s platform. I have a back issues entirely dedicated to ending the war on drugs and legalizing marijuana.

    And they weren’t afraid to take controversial positions on race.

    Mr. Frum is denouncing the exact policies advocated over a decade ago in the magazine he writes for.

  12. Eric Treanor

    Shane: No taxpayer individually covers all the costs that make his business possible. (I invite you to look again at my partial list of community-subsidized assistance that every business owner receives.) Since no one does anything alone, the law correctly doesn’t allow us to pretend like we do.

    The community builds a business, the community is given access to that business. Your Ayn Randian, heroic-individual business model might have its romantic appeal, but it doesn’t reflect the reality of your life or mine. Isolation is not freedom, as this activity itself attests.

    And you obviously don’t understand the fundamental principles of natural selection, which is driven by chance mutation—by good luck—and can only be understood in retrospect. If you want to base your moral philosophy, or even your business, on the vagaries of chance, you’re welcome to do so, but please don’t ask us to do the same with the laws of the land.

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>