Kevin Craig is a perennial candidate for the House of Representatives from Missouri representing the Libertarian Party (one wonders what kind of persons he would have to beat in the nomination process). More precisely, Craig describes himself as a “Christian Libertarian”, which does not mean Christian and libertarian but that he belongs, in his own eyes, to a particular brand of libertarianism. In fact, Craig seeks to establish what he calls a “Christian libertarian Theocracy”, so his brand sounds like a very, very special brand of libertarianism indeed. He is described here (this one ought to be seen, by the way).
One unusual feature of his “libertarianism” is the view that homosexuality should be criminalized. Craig believes that “Congress should: i) Hate homosexuality and homosexuals; ii) Follow God's Commandments with respect to them,” and his reasoning is that homosexuality is just like embezzlement: “Homosexuals attempt to embezzle sexual satisfaction from God's business. The entire creation is God's enterprise. God is the Boss. Homosexuals are disobedient employees. God hates them.” To emphasize that he is a radical libertarian, however, Craig does say that he doesn’t think child molestation should be illegal and punished by the government, because the government has no business concerning what goes on in people’s bedrooms.
Craig is also a global warming denialist because that seems to fit better with his political position, desperately claiming that “there is no consensus”. In fact, his website is a cesspool of New World Order conspiracy theories, creationism (yes, Craig deploys all the silliest arguments), altmed peddling, and HIV denialism – according to Craig “The government-approved orthodox HIV-AIDS theory distracts attention from the destructive nature of the homosexual lifestyle. There are many scientists, professors, researchers, even Nobel Prize-winners, who are skeptics, and see the HIV–AIDS religion as effective political lobbying, not effective science.” One wonders whether the putatively respectable skeptics are these. That would be too bad, for the people on that list, whatever else they are, are certainly not respectable.
Diagnosis: Virtually a professional Boolean negation operator. “Craig says p, therefore not-p” seems to be a fairly reliable inference rule for the rest of us.