Police brutality? Yes! Militarization of the police force? You bet! “A Government of Wolves”? Yes again! “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”? No doubt! But racism? Nonsense on stilts! So why have some libertarians applied this rhetoric to the murder-by-cop of black teenager Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri? The same people who would argue against color-coded hate-crime legislation—and rightly so, for a crime is a crime, no matter the skin pigment of perp or prey—would have you believe that it is possible to differentiate a racist from a non-racist shooting or beating.

Predictably, BBC News had taken a more analytical look at the “unrest in Ferguson,” pointing out that liberal outrage had centered on what the left sees as racial injustice. Libertarian anger, conversely, connected “the perceived overreaction by militarized local law enforcement to a critique of the heavy-handed power of government.”

As its libertarian stand-bearers, the BBC chose from the ranks of establishment, libertarian-leaning conservatives. Still, the ideological bifurcation applied by BBC was sound. With some exceptions, libertarians have consistently warned about a police state rising; the left has played at identity politics, appealing to its unappeasable base. As refreshingly clever as its commentators are, BBC is inexact. The very embodiment of political opportunism, Sen. Rand Paul has managed to straddle liberal and libertarian narratives, vaporizing as follows:

“… Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them. … Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention.”

The senator from Kentucky is considered “one of the leading figures in today’s libertarian movement.” Even so, on matters libertarian, Rand Paul is a political pragmatist; not the purist his father is. Alas, Rand has imbibed at home some unfortunate, crowd-pleasing habits—the leftist penchant for accusing law enforcement of racism. In 2012, in particular, during the debate between Republican presidential front-runners, in Manchester, New Hampshire, Ron Paul lurched to the left, implicating racism in the unequal outcomes meted by American justice:

“How many times have you seen the white rich person get the electric chair?” he asked. “If we really want to be concerned with racism … we ought to look at the drug laws.”

Laws that prevent the individual from purchasing, selling, ingesting, inhaling and injecting drugs ought to be repudiated and repealed on the grounds that they are wrong, not racist. But statism is not necessarily racism. Drug laws ensnare more blacks, because blacks are more likely to violate them by dealing in drugs or engaging in violence around commerce in drugs, not necessarily because cops are racists.

The following statements are, I believe, not mutually exclusive: Cops deal with the reality of crime. The culture of US cops is that of a craven disregard for American lives.

By all means, argue against laws that prohibit victimless “crimes” on the ground that these disproportionally ensnare blacks. But do not err in accusing all cops of targeting blacks, when the former are entrusted with enforcing the law, and the latter violate the law in disproportion to their numbers in the general population.

The left-liberal trend continued on the libertarian LewRockwell.com, where white sympathy with the police was conflated with racism: “This doesn’t mean that racism is not also involved [in Ferguson]. Polls show that a majority of white Americans are content with the police justification for the killing.”

Could it be that ordinary Americans maligned as racists are honestly waiting for more information, or suffer an authoritarian, submissive mindset; are ignorant about “police state USA,” or have simply experienced “black crime” first hand, or are fearful of experiencing “black-on-white violence” in all it ferocity? Clearly, there are many reasons for the acquiescence of whites in what might seem to many of us—myself included—as an unjustified use of lethal, police force.

Riding the same old racism ass was libertarian extraordinaire John Stossel, who managed to cram into an otherwise reasonable column a nod to the irrational racism meme. “Yes, centuries of white people abusing the civil liberties of blacks have left many blacks resentful of police power.” Et tu, Stossel? Here, perpetual black rage against innocent whites is legitimized by harking back to times bygone. Is there a statute of limitations on Honky’s perceived trespasses?

This collectivist case for group guilt in perpetuity conjures South Africa. There, apartheid has become the root-cause excuse, offered up by lily white liberals, for the dysfunction of many young black South Africans, who were born well after the end of apartheid.

While ambient lawlessness is loathsome; worthy of lionization is the black community’s resistance to a police force sporting a militarized mindset and armaments to match. Were Michael Brown one of the 2,151 whites slain by police “over the span of more than a decade”—his community of submissives would be silent, rather than protesting on the streets.

Go bros!

In absolute numbers, more whites than blacks are culled by cop, confirms politifact.com. Rand Paul is right and righteous to warn of the universal, indiscriminate “militarization of law enforcement,” coupled with “an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture.”

Where, then, is that black politician who would break from his racial orbit and recognize that, black, brown and white, we are all in this together? He’s not in the White House.

MSNBC host Al Sharpton is that fellow whose intelligible spoken English is confined to the words “racial discrimination.” The country’s second-leading race agitator has been deputized by its first as liaison to the White House in Ferguson. With his choice of Sharpton as point man on the ground, President Barack Obama, who was to usher in an America in which “ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony,” is stoking more strife.

Like two pimps in a pod, Sharpton and Obama have collaborated to keep racial grievance going.

Rand Paul is front-and-center in mainstream media, showing what some call “leadership.” Not a week goes by when the son of Ron Paul—the legendary libertarian legislator from Texas—is not introducing one act or another, ostensibly to lighten the incubus of government.

This week it’s the REINS Act (“Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013”). Last week it was the “Sequester Alternative Plan.” I like the Senator from Kentucky’s energy. The question is: Is this political Brownian motion—the case of activity substituting for achievement—or real Randian energy in furtherance of liberty?

Rand’s “Sequester Without Layoffs” suggestions trump most debt theatrics out there—except that they display the kind of philosophical compromises that attached to the senator’s Tea Party State of the Union 2013 rebuttal. For one—and from the libertarian stand—the goal is to reduce the malign effects of government, scope and size, not only its costs. Why exclude layoffs?

True enough, Rand Paul’s rebuttal was the only speech worth listening to on that day. Still, why, for example, would a smart man like the senator deploy “official” unemployment figures, rather than real joblessness, referred to by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as U-6? Even the U-6—which includes the unemployed, those who would like to work but who have not looked for a job recently, as well as those involuntarily working part-time—is inadequate. According to economist John Williams, total unemployment is nearing 23 percent, not the 7.8 percent (12.1 million people) to which Obama and Paul cop.

Another bum note Rand sounded was on the “Balanced Budget Amendment.” “To begin with, we absolutely must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution,” he roared. It’s the sort of compromise his father would not have made. Ron Paul would have demanded that entire departments be shuttered—not that the bums merely bring into balance what was stolen (taxes) with what is squandered (spending).

Besides, what a balanced-budget requirement implies is that government has the constitutional right to spend as much as it takes in—that government is permitted to waste however much revenue it can extract from wealth producers. Not so.

Paul misstepped again by demanding an “end to all foreign aid to countries that are burning our flag and chanting death to America.” Better to end foreign aid, period. Yes to private US aid, no to USAID (United States Agency for International Development).

As for Rand’s expressed dread of “another downgrade in America’s credit rating”: why? A well-deserved downgrade is a good thing—a must. The US government is insolvent, and no spending cuts have been forthcoming.

Oy! And Rand Paul supports charter schools. Educational vouchers and charter schools are not part of a free-market order; they are part of the state-run system. Tweaking a government-managed pedagogic gulag will only prolong the torture it inflicts.

Rand Paul’s latest political song and dance saw the senator return $600,000 in savings, accrued in the course of running a cost-efficient office, to the US Treasury, where it does not belong. The savings belong to taxpayers. Stolen goods stuffed down the maw of the federal beast will disappear without trace. For all we know, and given the fact of fungibility, these savings could be diverted into the domestic drone program.

Yes, Sen. Paul followed legal protocol in returning taxpayer property to the Treasury. However, the positive manmade law is not a libertarian loadstar. From the son of Ron more is expected.

But should this be the case? Perhaps Rand Paul deserves a break. All too familiar is the libertarian type that has nothing to say about policy and politics for fear of compromising theoretical purity. Suspended as he is in the arid arena of pure thought, this specimen has opted to live in perpetual sin: the sin of abstraction.

The “ideal of liberty,” philosopher-pundit Jack Kerwick has urged, must be “brought down from the clouds to the nit and the grit of the history and culture from which it emerged.”

But should the command to lead an earthbound existence push us into political compromises?

Like most Americans, I like an action hero. I am just incapable of telling whether Rand Paul is such a hero, or whether he is no more than a political performance artist.

It is a smart libertarian who retains a healthy contempt for politicians, even the libertarian ones. Ultimately, they’re all empire builders, who see nothing wrong in using fame and the public dime to peddle their influence and their products.

The people—at least those who’ve never fed at the “public” trough, unlike every single politician and his aide—are always morally superior to the politicians.

In all, some politicians are less sickening than others, but all fit somewhere along a sick-making scale.

On the heels of Barack Obama’s Las Vegas run-on ramble on the necessity of immigration “reform,” this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced that he too had “evolved” overnight on the issue. “I’m … open-minded enough to say that it is an issue that we do need to evolve on,” the senator vaporized.

Paul is a Johnny-come-lately to his party’s devolution on immigration. The country was still surveying the debris left by the “D-Bomb” (where “D” stands for demographics), dropped on Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012—when, one-by-one, key Republicans began to defect, pledging their commitment to an “overhaul of the immigration system”; to “reform”; to “a comprehensive solution”; to “fixing a broken system,” all well-recognized euphemisms for amnesty.

A tipping point in the demographic shift in the US population had returned Barack Obama to power for a second term. A moratorium on mass immigration, buttressed by strong secessionist and states’ rights movements, might just help delay another such bomb from detonating. But the Republicans were having none of it.

House Speaker John Boehner was soon leading the party of turncoats to the promised (la-la) land, pledging that “a comprehensive approach” was “long overdue.” “I’m confident,” Boehner promised, “that the president, myself [and] others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

In short succession, our wily pitch men were joined by Republican media mouths who had also “evolved” overnight. Thus, in a career-clinching bid—presumably, to continue playing a part in national politics—Sean Hannity, an influential Fox-News personality, declared that he too had found religion on immigration and now supported a “pathway to citizenship.”

Another mantra mouthed by brother-believer Charles Krauthammer and echoed by Sen. Paul was that, “The GOP needs to do a better job of reaching out to Hispanic voters.” Yes, “Inside each Latin American immigrant there’s a Republican waiting to get out,” mocked Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Mockery for this pie-in-the-sky is warranted. However dispiriting, the reason 71 percent of Hispanic voters broke for Obama is not because Republicans are mean to them—John McCain and George Bush demonstrated that they would wrestle a crocodile for any Hispanic convert, legal, illegal and criminal. This identity group’s political preference is because 60 percent of them live in or near poverty and “fully 57 percent use at least one welfare program.”

In his irrational ramble, the president waxed about legalizing the “11 million undocumented immigrants [residing] in America,” while at the same time praising the contribution made by their kind to the founding of great “businesses like Google and Yahoo.”

Fantasies about the future founders of companies like Google and Yahoo, aside—their highly educated corporeal founders are from Russia (Sergey Brin) and Taiwan (Jerry Yang). The 11-million strong voting bloc currently being converged upon by the zombies aforementioned originates not in Russia or Taiwan, as Obama would have you believe, but, for the most, in Latin American.

By Wikipedia’s telling, “as a group,” they tend to be “less educated than other sections of the U.S. population: 49 percent haven’t completed high school, compared with 9 percent of native-born Americans and 25 percent of legal immigrants.”

No longer able to ignore the differing racial voting patterns that emerged in the 2012 election, USA Today diagnosed America as a “nation moving further apart.” Acknowledging that America was riven by race had compelled the newspaper to disgorge that their pet president had suffered some erosion in support—most significantly from “whites under 30.” “In 2008, they had backed Obama by 10 points. This time, they supported Romney by eight.”

Famous for its “Black, Brown and Plain Boring in America” programming, CNN broke down the November election results by age and race. As it turned out, white millennials were not complete morons. (Soledad O’Brien, the Agony Aunt who produced the racist propaganda series, would disagree with me.) Among whites aged 18-29 years, Mitt Romney led 51 percent to 44 percent, giving the Republican candidate an 11 percent edge.

“More white people voted for Mitt Romney this year than voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Barack Obama lost white voters by 20 points—the widest margin since 1984,” seconded Ann Coulter.

The sauce that cooked the goose of America’s historic majority—sixty-two percent of which supported Romney—was that this majority was outnumbered as a voting bloc. Ann again: “[I]n 1980, whites were 88 percent of the electorate. In 2012, they were 72 percent of the electorate. Not only that, but the non-white electorate is far more Democratic than it was in 1980.”

Republicans have responded as the drag queens of politics that they are (no offense to drag queens). Depending which way the political winds are blowing, establishment Republicans will modify their game plan. A good gauge of Republican treachery is the manner in which they beat up on Mitt Romney whenever he uttered an impolitic truth.

“In explaining his overwhelming electoral college defeat,” reported the New York Times, Romney alluded to Obama having followed “the ‘old playbook’ of seeking votes from specific interest groups, ‘especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

No sooner had Romney so reasoned than Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Newt Gingrich, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (deemed another GOP rising star), MSNBC token conservative, and “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough rose to spit venom at the man.

Leading the pack was Obama’s New BFF (Best Friend Forever), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), whose very future as a member of the North East elite hinged on maligning Mitt Romney.

Why was Mitt Romney’s analysis of the role played by the give-me constituency in his electoral loss so factually wrong? This these reptilian brains (more apologies, this time to reptiles) could not quite explain. All the Republicans knew was that their cushy jobs depended on distancing themselves from truth and from any man who spoke it, however fleetingly.

The same Republican cobra-head that rose to spit at Romney whenever he broke from the pack is now leading the charge for amnesty and against America’s waning historical majority.