Intellectual Barbarians Attack Jack Hunter

It's amusing to watch the dim-wits get in a tizzy over their discovery of Jack Hunter, a former radio host and current aide to Senator Rand Paul. They can't stand that he would support the right of secession, even though they just got through celebrating the 237th anniversary of our secession from Great Britain. You've got to be a part of the Lincoln cult to be respected by them, as that is what the whole federal government is based on today.

Over his career Hunter has made some inflammatory statements, some of which I would not be able to agree with, either. But never mind that. Chris Hayes' segment on the issue is why I'm posting in the first place. You can watch it here. He says:

"In the final analysis, there are certain things, certain views, that just put you outside of the boundaries of being listened to on anything. I'd say White supremacy is one of those. And association with people that hold those views or endorsements of feature of those views, well, they render you unfit. even if you take the most charitable view possible, that say, you get three white supremacist strikes, Rand Paul is in trouble."

He goes on to list three "strikes". I am not very familiar with the first one and don't really care about it right now. So I will grant, for the sake of argument, that you could fault the Rand Paul team for hiring a spokesperson like that.

The second strike, Hayes claims, is consistently supporting private property. No kidding. In the delusional world of Chris Hayes, there is only the false dichotomy of being for the Civil Rights Act or being a white supremacist.

The third strike is Jack Hunter. Evidently, he is a racist/white supremacist, despite the lack of evidence in the original hit piece at Free Beacon or any of the follow-up stories. That doesn't stop raving lunatics like Chris Hayes from trying to make a connection, though.

I have followed Hunter's work for some time, though I stopped after he drifted to far from libertarianism to be worth my time. I never saw anything racist at all. Leftist morons really need to let go of the race card. It's sad and comical how they see racism everywhere, when most of it is all in their head. Perhaps they should get out of their cocoons and meet the people they demonize.

As far as Chris Hayes and his ilk, I'd say his worldview of statism puts him outside of the boundaries of being listened to on anything, and intellectually bankrupt segments like he did for MSNBC render him unfit to be given any respect at all.

Jack Hunter, Propagandist for Rand Paul

In a recent piece Jack Hunter tries to defend his support for Rand Paul, and is happy to call himself a “propagandist” for Rand Paul. It’s fine to be a propagandist, everyone is for their own cause. However, his defenses of Rand Paul don’t repel the more serious criticisms of Senator Paul’s choices in the past few years.

"Ask the average grassroots conservative what they think of Ron Paul and you typically get a mixed reaction. Ask them what they think of Rand Paul and you find much more enthusiasm. The philosophy hasn’t substantively changed. The methods and style most certainly have."

The problem with this argument is stuff like Rand’s vote for the NDAA in 2012. It’s one thing to play along with the party and endorse the horrific nominee, it’s one thing to make arguments against federal disaster relief based on budget issues only (while ignoring more important arguments), it’s one thing to say an attack on Israel is an attack on the US (and then claim/clarify it’s just in a nuclear war scenario), but to start voting for extremely bad legislation is crossing the line. That’s no longer style/rhetorical difference. It’s aiding the ideological enemy.

"For every questionable action—support for Mitt Romney, comments about the US’s relationship with Israel, (was trying to think of more here for good measure, but these seem to be the primary two)—these things do not diminish the overall record of the most libertarian Senator since the Founding era."

Indeed, he easily became the most libertarian Senator, but since the bar was so low in the Senate to begin with, that’s not the impressive feat it sounds like. Rand Paul had the opportunity, being Ron Paul’s son and all, to be so much more. Politics is a lagging indicator, but Rand actually knows more about liberty than most politicians, so he could have stepped ahead of the curve and led like his father.

"I have not always agreed with Ron and Rand Paul. When I didn’t, I’ve said nothing. Silence.

[…]

Bad votes or comments should not go uncriticized."

Which is it, should bad votes and comments be criticized, or will you remain silent? Probably the latter, since Hunter likely wants to stay on Rand’s good side. Maybe he is hoping to land a job in a Rand Paul Administration.

The increasing questioning of Rand Paul’s methods is not going away, Mr. Hunter. You’re taking a huge risk, hoping another politician’s trip down the slippery slope of compromise to grab the ring of power defies history and actually works this time.

There is no shortcut to liberty.