Fox News on Ron Paul's Decision to Forgo Trump Debate and Trump's Criticism

In the video below Fox News  reports on Ron Paul's decision (along with Jon Huntsman) to not take part in the Donald Trump debate, calling the reality TV star's self-promotion sideshow "beneath the office of the presidency"

The panel rightly pointed out Trump's criticism of Paul's candidacy as unfounded, noting Paul's high poll numbers and solid ground game in Iowa--the state where the debate will be hosted.

It is nice to see the mainstream media finally coming around and noting Paul's credibility as of late. One can only image where the Texas congressman would find himself if given a fair shake more often in the electoral process.

Rick Santorum: Compassionate? Perhaps. Conservative? By No Means.

I have been involved in a number of Facebook discussions today on a number of topics. One such discussion produced the following question:

"Daryl, what are your thoughts on [Rick] Santorum? Just curious."

I have long despised Santorum, even in my younger years when I was much more sympathetic to the so-called "social conservative wing" of the GOP. So I quickly provided the following response. 

"I think Santorum represents everything that's wrong with the GOP in the post-Reagan era. He is a standard bearer for Bush neoconservatism, which is pie in the sky liberalism at its base, as well as misguided social conservatism. 

What I mean by 'misguided social conservatism' is a focus on government prohibition and moral position taking that flies in the face of conservative values like limited government. I have no problem [I should say little problem with many] with the personal positions he holds on social issues. I share many of his positions myself. I just take issue at his insistence that we need the government to regulate those social issues. And this is coming from me--a guy who has never touched a drop of alcohol, practices abstinence, supports tradition, and the like. So it isn't that I am some immoral degenerate trying to get my behavior supported in the public arena; this is coming from a traditional conservative that believes like the Founders that social institutions and not the gov't should influence such behavior. 

Plainly put: Santorum is all for big gov't as long as that big gov't suits his desires to shape society in his image--a Catholic one at that. Moreover, as an Evangelical Christian I take issue at his reliance on federal laws to change hearts and minds rather than the Gospel. I would not vote for him under any circumstances."

Hours later I came across the latest from Jack Hunter that gives a great analysis of the former Pennsylvania senator's big government ways. If I would have known of its existence at the time, I would have just posted the following video. 

If you vote...

‎"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
~ John Quincy Adams

Nasty Attacks Are Nothing New

When I hear folks ranting about how "politics have become so dirty," I always point to the election of 1800 as proof that things have been bad since the beginning. In fact, things may have become more civil. Take a look at this great video from Reason that gives us a taste of what was said in our nations first competitive presidential election in the form of would-be ads from 1800.

Follow the San Francisco Chronicle's Example?

It is rare that I would advocate anyone following the example of the San Francisco Chronicle, but their editorial board's refusal to endorse in California's senate race commands our consideration.

Claiming that "Californians are left with a deeply unsatisfying choice for the U.S. Senate this year," the Chronicle on Sunday refused to throw their support behind Barbara Boxer or Carly Fiorina, claiming that Boxer lacks the effectiveness in advocating the liberal causes the editors advocate and Fiorina stands in the way of those very causes. While the paper's reasoning is flawed and differs greatly from my own, they are right to notice that it is unwise to throw support behind candidates that do not share one's values.


Too often we are told to choose the lesser of two evils and support one of the major party candidates even if neither represent the values we desire in a candidate, but this urging is misguided and down right foolish. All we do when supporting the "lesser of two evils" is reward political parties for running "evil" candidates, create a continued cycle of "evil" candidates in each election, and place "evil" people into office. The lie that one party is better than the other is revealed every time a poor candidate is rewarded with victory; they govern in a way not unlike their opponents and we wonder why things never change. It is philosophy, not party, that truly distinguishes candidates.

If we truly seek to advance liberty we must stop blindly supporting major party candidates if they are not worthy of our support. While we will never find someone we agree with 100% of the time, we must be careful to not quickly compromise our principles. Much of the poor situation we find ourselves in can be linked back to similar compromises in past elections. 


Whether it be in primaries or general elections, those of us serious about liberty and a return to a free society must follow the example of the Chronicle--if no one is worthy of our support, let's withhold it.

Vote Ron Ramsey for Governor of TN!!!!

For the past few months I have worked tirelessly for the campaign of Ron Ramsey for governor of Tennessee, believing Ron Ramsey to be the only right man for the job.

As a constitutionalist and lover of liberty, I am proud to support a man who is truly committed to the principles that our Founders sought to establish. Ron is the real deal. He is the only one ready to do the job on day one after taking office, and he is the only one with the philosophical commitment to govern in accordance with constitutional principles. His voting record proves it. Therefore, I am convinced that he must be our next governor.

The other candidates in the race are not conservatives, libertarians, or small government types at all. They hold flawed positions and have liberty-hostile records on the issues that matter.

Ron Ramsey is the only candidate worthy of my and your vote. So please vote for my boss, Ron Ramsey, in today's Republican primary. Vote Ramsey. Vote the Constitution. 

For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty

 For Liberty is finally out for online viewing. It is a great film to watch even if you are not involved in the liberty movement. I was honestly brought to tears a few times during the film. It is a beautiful movement of which I am thankfully a part.

Alvin Greene's Dumb Party by the Southern Avenger

Dale Peterson with a Sequel!!!!!!!

He's back and this time he's endorsing. So take that, thugs and criminals!

The original video that started it all is here.

Sestak and the Obama Administration...The Proper Move

ABC News reports:

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee "urge the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to exit the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Senator Arlen Specter."

Though it may appear to be an act of political opportunism, the actions of the GOP committeemen are quite proper and should be encouraged. Sadly, we are dealing with a possible high-profile political crime carried out by the White House. If the Mr Sestak's claim--that he was offered a position in the administration to bow out of the PA Democratic primary--is true, there's been a major breach of the law that must be prosecuted.

Treating federal jobs like thank you cards is bad enough, but using them to intervene in electoral politics is even worse. Not only does it allow for political manipulation and the ability of the executive branch to pick the legislative players, it is illegal. If we are to be a nation of laws, we cannot have the White House leading the pack in the violation of those laws.

All that said, we should be careful to let the eveidence speak for itself.

No one should be too quick to call the president a liar, side with Sestak, and cry foul. The jury is still, out and I will not pass judgment until more evidence is available. Until the facts are in we should give the chief executive the presumption of innocence.

Moreover, even though I despise the president's policies, I hope he is innocent. The ramifications of the White House manipulating elections by offering jobs on this level would be a huge step back in a time that we don't need more trouble. If the allegations are true, however, I hope those responsible will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. None should be spared.

A Victory for Rand Paul and the Tea Party

The power of the Tea Party Movement manifested itself mightily in yesterday's GOP primary in Kentucky. In what seemed an impossibility just a few short months ago, Rand Paul--a Bowling Green doctor and Tea Party favorite--defeated the establishment-backed Trey Grayson with a margin slightly higher than 2:1.

Lacking the powerful donors and the backing of the establishment machine, Paul's support came primarily from Tea Party patriots, conservative/libertarian groups, and other grassroots activists across the Bluegrass State. Defying the likes of Mitch McConnell and a whole host of neoconservatives, Rand Paul's primary victory proved that the grassroots can still provide electoral victory, and it will be that same grassroots support that will provide general election victory for Paul and other liberty lovers come November.

Looking to the results in Kentucky, we can draw a few conclusions.

1. The establishment should not overlook the possible success of  those they currently do not see as threats. Those minor threats could morph into major contenders who boast major victories.

2. These positive results can and should be replicated in races across the nations. If it can happen for Paul in Kentucky, it can happen for other candidates around the country. (I believe it will happen for Ron Ramsey in Tennessee, personally.)

3. The Tea Party can and will make a difference at the end of the day. The media and others can mock all they want, but they cannot argue with these (and similar) results.

Despite these truths the Tea Party movement should remain vigilant and guard against co-optation. If they are not careful to maintain philosophical consistency and purity, they may be the establishment who is punished years from now.

No Mercy for Incumbents by the Southern Avenger

What to Make of Cheney's Endorsement of Rubio

In what should be a kiss of death, former Vice-President Dick Cheney has officially endorsed Marco Rubio over Charlie Christ in the Florida senate race.

Politico reports:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney threw his support to Marco Rubio in the Florida GOP Senate primary Thursday, warning that "Charlie Crist cannot even be trusted to remain a Republican."

The Cheney endorsement represents the most significant national "get" to date for Rubio, and comes as Crist weighs bolting the Republican Party to run as an independent.

In a statement issued by Rubio's campaign, the former vice president urged Crist to stay in the primary or drop out of the race altogether. "The only winners from an independent bid by Crist would be Barack Obama and Harry Reid," Cheney said.

Crist's plunging poll numbers and open consideration of an independent run have prompted a stampede of previously neutral GOP figures to get behind Rubio. In less than a week, the former state House speaker has won support from 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and now Cheney.

Rubio is the golden boy for conservatives, Tea Party members, and those disgusted with business as usual in the Sunshine State. Moreover, he has racked up massive support from traditional conservatives like South Carolina's Jim DeMint and has taken his long shot senate bid to a blistering lead.

Not on the surface unlike Rand Paul's fairing in Kentucky, Rubio still has much to prove as to whether he can match the level of consistent conservatism held by Paul. But that does not mean that Rubio isn't a conservative at all; I merely have my doubts. Truly, he may do well, or he may become a tool of the establishment and betray traditional conservatives views of spending, the role of government, foreign policy, etc.Those fears aside, Rubio has taken on the establishment in the form of Crist and now has them knocking at his door for support. 

I don't believe that Cheney's endorsement should look poorly upon Mr. Rubio. He cannot help it if an evil, neocon sees victory and desires to be on the winning bandwagon. Moreover, for some ignorant people, Cheney is still a positive figure who's support is a welcomed move. Of course, these people truly care little for the Constitution, conservatism, liberty, or the like--whether they realize it or not. For, one look at Cheney's record shows him to be one of the greatest opponents to liberty and the Constitution to ever hold the office of vice-president.

The real thing to be taken away form the ordeal is the irony in Cheney endorsement. He is obviously not committed to conservatism; he did endorse Clintonian Trey Grayson in KY. Therefore, in endorsing Rubio over Crist, Cheney is basically saying, "Don't vote for the guy like me!"

Crist is a big government type like Cheney. He has continuall betrayed principle and until a couple of weeks ago he was the establishment's man. Rubio on the other hand is the antithesis of Cheney. He seems to be committed to principle. Likewise, he is a Tea Party favorite and took on the party establishment with his choice to run.

If Cheney's endorsement means that he sees himself in Rubio, we should all be concerned. However, if he is telling us to shy from Crist/Cheney types, for once we should take his advice.

Questions for TN's 4th District

I am heading up a committee for an upcoming debate put on by the Lincoln County Republican Party. The debate will be among the GOP candidates vying for Tennessee's 4th District US House seat. My committee's responsibility, among other things, is to craft the questions for the candidates. That is where you come in.

We are now accepting question suggestions. If you can think of a good question or topic for a question to ask these congressional hopefuls, please send it my way before 10pm on April 9th.

Please email suggested questions to defenseofconstitution@gmail.com.

The debate will be held on April the 20th at 6pm on the campus of Riverside Christian Academy in Fayetteville, TN. It is open to the public, so come join us!

Rand Paul Calls Greyson on Lies

I have seen firsthand the lies perpetrated by the Trey Grayson campaign in Kentucky. Rand is getting sick of it, and the people of Kentucky deserve better. Spread this ad around, especially to Kentucky voters, to set the record straight.



Hat Tip: The Humble Libertarian

Dangerous Rand Paul by the Southern Avenger

For readers of this blog, it is no secret that I wholeheartedly support Rand Paul for Senate. This is not only because he is the best candidate in the race; he is the only conservative running. But I also am excited about what he means to the liberty movement as a true constitutional conservative. Once again Jack Hunter hits the nail on the head in his latest piece on Paul.

What Will Novemeber Bring?

Besides my take on the passage of Obamacare, I have been most asked the following types of questions as of late by concerned citizens: Can we actually get some good guys in office this Fall? Do you think the Republicans will take back the House come election night? Will the Tea Party actually be able to have a positive effect on the conservative movement in November?

Well...I'm no soothsayer; so my knowledge of the future is just as good as the next guy. Moreover, I think that each of these questions, though they may overlap, are referring to different things. Nevertheless, I will attempt to unpack the political situation as I see it.

Yes, the Democrats have been engaging in very unpopular behavior for a number of years which has escalated over the past 14 months, and they have just passed a mammoth piece of unpopular legislation--Obamacare. But we need only look back to the 2004 re-election of George W. Bush to see that unpopularity and poor policy does not always guarantee electoral failure. Despite this reality, I see major gains for the GOP come November unless their is a drastic, unforeseen change in the political environment.

Therefore, if one is merely concerned with success for those running under the Republican brand, it will be a good year. This does not mean, however, that 2010 will be a great year for conservatism. As we can see from our current crop of Republicans, true conservatism and a commitment to limited government principles couldn't be further from many in the GOP's minds.

Indeed, 2010 should be a great year for conservatism and a great year for the restoration of the Republican Party to its conservative platform, but if early signs hold true, those of us who love liberty and the Constitution may be left wanting. I say this not for lack of opportunity nor for lack of strength in our cause. Rather, my doubts stem from both the party establishments' support of non-principled candidates and from movements like the Tea Party folks' perceived willingness to pick the "lesser of two evils." The establishment of both parties is powerful in its support of the status quo; since the current status quo is against liberty, the tide will not be easily turned. Moreover, if those who claim to want change side with "the lesser of two evils," there will be no hope for lasting change--unless the change one wants is a government full of liberals like Scott Brown and John McCain.

Not to sound overly pessimistic, I would like to clarify my opinion. I do think good things will come about this Fall. Good conservatives, like Kentucky's Rand Paul, will have success, and our country will benefit greatly from it. Likewise, many bad officeholders will be punished by losing their seats. Moreover, I think that the Tea Party movement and the whole host of other movements under the "liberty" banner have a great opportunity to do good and put constitutionalists into office this Fall. The time is ripe, and the moment should not be wasted.

But I have also been around politics long enough to know that people are often short sided and quick to sell out their principles. If the Tea Party movement uses its influence merely as an arm of the GOP, we as small government advocates will see electoral failure. Until shills like Sean Hannity are called out on their hypocrisy, rather than being celebrated as movement torch-bearers, their will be great difficulty in restoring a constitutional republic. Moreover, the GOP is not the conservative movement. This needs to be noted. I believe that working within the GOP provides the most promising electoral prospect, and as conservatives and libertarians, we can assert our influence to take back the GOP from neoconservatives and political progressives. But the acknowledgement that working within the GOP may be the best path to power, does not mean that we should wholesale endorse GOP candidates. Only those who share our values and principles deserve our support; others should e opposed. If we don't act accordingly, we will be doomed.

It is my fear that November will bring compromise and neglect of principle that will usher Republicans into office but leave conservatives and libertarians out.

The only way to combat this potential march of the RINOs is to hold strongly to principle. There should be no blind partisanship, no choosing "the lesser of two evils," and no room for selling out. If we do not demand a higher standard from our candidates and our representatives, we will continue to reap these poor results, and we may reap nothing but more bad governance come election day.