As if his egregious comments about civil rights weren't enough, Dr. Rand Paul has called President Obama "un-American" for having called British Petroleum to account for the Louisiana oil spill. Let's see: civil rights are questionable, and protecting the public good is antithetical to the role of government. What's next for Dr. Paul? Kicking puppies?
The trouble with ideologues (of any stripe) is that they are absolutely the wrong Meyers-Brigges types to work "with others" as they used to say back in the first grade.
Dear Dr. Paul: was investigating the sinking of the Titanic "un-American"?
What about calling the Detroit auto industry to account for manufacturing unsafe cars like the famous Corvair? Was that un-American?
God Almighty!
Appaently Paul's version of Americanism entails absolutely fealty and incipient toadyism to corporate and private business interests.
That's so simple!
Another term for this is Fascism.
That is also "simple" as it were.
Surely the great state of Kentucky, the birth place of Abraham Lincoln can do better than to elect such a perfervid exceptionalist. Notice what a nice term that is? I'm trying so hard to be kind. Dr. Paul is a "fuzzy Fascist"–how's that?
S.K.
Planet of the Blind 
OK, here’s the tragedy of Dr. Paul’s thinking. It is tragic that a person thinks that the state is the better entity to decide the fate of an unborn child than that child’s mother. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most heart-wrenching decisions that most expectant mothers will ever face. That decision is typcially made weighing the best interests of both mother and unborn child whose fates are in so many ways inextricably linked. It’s unconscionable that a person would think that the state should have the power to make this decision, rather than the mother.
It is also tragic that a person would support laws that enable the state to deny any human access to the marketplace based on anything other than behaviors that pose signficant risks to the well-being of others. Freedom for the powerful to restrain the peaceful activities of people without as much power for no good reason is not my definition of freedom.
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm?cartoonist=RogerR
LikeLike
Dr. Paul would have served humankind much better had he stayed with the ophthalmological vocation for which he received training and education. He would deny the rights of a woman to have the option of abortion even when it is medically necessary to her. He also strongly believes that a private business owner should have the right to restrict a person from entering a business establishment because of the person’s race. And so many support this thinking — this is the tragedy.
LikeLike