You are Here:
The Rand Paul Deception

Author (Read 38200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Rand Paul Deception
« on: Mar 10, 2014, 11:35:23 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/23/the-hollow-man-rand-pauls-father-complex/

The Hollow Man: Rand Paul’s Father Complex

There's something about an Aqua Buddha man …

by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
September 24, 2010

I get lots of junk email, perhaps more than most, and I ignore 99.9 percent of it, but the other day I got one from the Rand Paul campaign that for some reason stood out, and in an idle moment I opened it, and read:

"Can you help our campaign fight back, today and in the coming weeks, against the libelous attacks of the leftist media?"

Libelous? Hmmm, I thought, that’s a strange way for a libertarian to phrase it.

Libertarians are not exactly fans of libel laws: aside from being an infringement on the First Amendment, the whole idea of "libel" is based on a nonsensical premise: that you somehow "own" your reputation, which, if damaged, must be repaired with a nice fat check from the libeler. Yet one’s reputation exists solely in the minds of other people, and no way do your rights of ownership extend that far.

Libertarians are not exactly fans of libel laws: aside from being an infringement on the First Amendment, the whole idea of "libel" is based on a nonsensical premise: that you somehow "own" your reputation, which, if damaged, must be repaired with a nice fat check from the libeler. Yet one’s reputation exists solely in the minds of other people, and no way do your rights of ownership extend that far.

Now the ins-and-outs of libel law are a relatively arcane aspect of libertarian theory, and not everyone in the movement "gets it," not even the son of Ron Paul, so we’ll give him a pass, I thought. However, in the next moment it occurred to me that to call something "libelous" is, by definition, to assert that it’s somehow untrue. For example: the statement "Rand Paul is a murderer" would be genuinely libelous, because as far as I know it’s demonstrably false. But are the attacks on Rand Paul in the "leftist media" based on the facts, or did Rachel Maddow make up that interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, in which he came out against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Well, no, she didn’t make it up: she simply quoted his own words back at him – and he ran away from them (and her) as fast as he possibly could. Then there was that piece in Gentlemen’s Quarterly, which no one took very seriously, detailing Rand Paul’s college hijinks, including one episode where he and his friends supposedly "kidnapped" one of their female classmates, "forced" her to take some bong hits, and demanded she worship at the altar of "Aqua Buddha." Ha ha, very funny – although, to be sure, author Jason Zengerle took this a whole lot more seriously than anybody else. In any case, it turned out that the woman wasn’t really "kidnapped," although the incident as described did indeed take place – so here’s another case of non-libel. And now we have Zengerle making another go of it, a lot more successfully this time, with yet another piece in GQ in which he writes:

"Ron Paul, in addition to his extreme views on the federal government, has been a harsh critic of the Republican Party’s ‘military adventurism,’ and in the past Rand has faithfully echoed his father’s views. He opposed the war in Iraq, once characterized the September 11 attacks as ‘blowback for our foreign policy,’ and scoffed at the threat of Iranian nukes. And yet here he was in Washington, seeking out a secret meeting with some of the Ron Paul Revolutionaries’ biggest bogeymen. At a private office in Dupont Circle, he talked foreign policy with Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly, three prominent neocons who’d been part of an effort to defeat him during the primary. ‘He struck me as genuinely interested in trying to understand why people like us were so apoplectic,’ Senor says of their two-hour encounter. ‘He wanted to get educated about our problem with him. He wasn’t confrontational, and he wasn’t disagreeable. He didn’t seem cemented in his views. He was really in absorption mode.’"

Let’s unpack this bit of news, and mine its implications – which are many, and not at all favorable to Rand. First, it wasn’t the neocons who were courting Rand: Zengerle explicitly says it was Rand who was "seeking out" the meeting, and he wanted it "secret." So he was slinking around drumming up support, like any ordinary run-of-the-mill politician – so what?

Sure, he’s a politician, and they all (with one exception, as far as I know) suck up to everyone and anyone, but these three – Kristol, Senor, and Donnelly – aren’t just anyone. They are the three most anti-libertarian figures on the American Right, with King Kristol being the godfather of the neocons – a position he inherited from his father — and the other two his consiglieri. Not only that, but Kristol has a long history of not only attacking libertarians, but of smearing Rand’s father as an extremist who represents the "wooly fringe," a "crank," and, if not an outright anti-Semite, certainly the sort of candidate who welcomes and naturally attracts them.

This is the man Rand sought out, which raises a question: if the Rand Paul campaign wants us to give them money to fight the "libelous" attacks of the "leftist media," then why in the name of all that’s holy is Rand chasing after someone who libeled his own father?

Yes, this is about Rand’s foreign policy views, but it’s also about his character. The GOP is supposed to be committed to "family values": it’s been their shtick for years. Yet what kind of family values is it when a Republican candidate has no compunctions about stabbing his own father in the back? Faced with the crew that relentlessly slandered Ron Paul at every opportunity, Rand, we are told, went into "absorption mode."

It was a personal and ideological betrayal on a scale that’s painful to contemplate, and it was repeated the following month, when, we are told by Zengerle,

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #1 on: Mar 10, 2014, 11:39:21 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-supporters-decry-rands-endorsement-of-romney/

Ron Paul Supporters Decry Rand’s Endorsement of Romney

Majority accuse Kentucky Senator of selling out to Republican establishment

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, June 8, 2012

Editor’s Note: Alex Jones will be covering this issue on today’s show. He will also release a special message for Ron Paul tonight.

Rand Paul’s decision to endorse Mitt Romney as Republican candidate for President is causing a firestorm of outrage amongst Ron Paul supporters, who are accusing the Kentucky Senator of selling out to the political establishment.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSkt_kvgyeM

During an appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show last night, Rand Paul threw his weight behind the former Massachusetts Governor.

“My first choice had always been my father. I campaigned for him when I was 11-years-old. He’s still my first pick,” Paul told Hannity. “But now that the nominating process is over, tonight I’m happy to announce that I’m going to be supporting Gov. Mitt Romney.”

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

The Trouble with Rand Paul
« Reply #2 on: Mar 10, 2014, 11:45:52 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/the-trouble-with-rand-paul/

The Trouble with Rand Paul

John Aziz
Azizonomics
Saturday, June 9, 2012

Perhaps that’s Rand’s idea of playing politics? Come to the table, strike a deal, get what you can. Trouble is, it’s tough striking a good deal when the guy on the other side of the table believes that the government should be allowed to claim — without having to produce any evidence whatsoever — that certain people are terrorists, and therefore should be detained indefinitely without any kind of due process.

That’s textbook tyranny.

Yes, I would have [signed the NDAA]. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail. If I were president I would not abuse this power. But people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants. -- Mitt Romney

Except, if the government had any evidence they were really members of al-Qaeda and engaged in a war against America they could be charged with offenses under current laws and tried in front of a jury of their peers. As was proven when Judge Katherine Forrest struck down the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA as unconstitutional, the real detention targets are people like the ones who brought the case — writers, investigative journalist and whistleblowers: people like Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, and Birgitta Jonsdottir.

Rand Paul might have done some good work trying to filibuster the Patriot Act, but endorsing Mitt Romney goes beyond the pale. The NDAA is Romney’s most egregious transgression against liberty, but not far behind are his desire to start a war against Iran, to increase military spending, to start a trade war with China and his belief that corporations are people.

I know I will never agree with any politician on every single dimension of every single issue, and that to some extent politics will always involve compromise. Certainly, I disagree with Ron Paul on some issues. But Mitt Romney’s stances on these issues seem much, much, much closer to Barack Obama than they do to Ron Paul. In fact, he might as well have endorsed Obama for President.

And the Ron Paul supporters are noticing: Rand has probably burnt most bridges to his Father’s supporters now. His Facebook page has seen a huge outpouring of fury:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Rand Paul: A Neocon in Libertarian Clothing?
« Reply #3 on: Mar 10, 2014, 11:51:13 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-a-neocon-in-libertarian-clothing/

Rand Paul: A Neocon in Libertarian Clothing?

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 13, 2012

In 2010, Rand Paul courted the neocon wing of the Republican Party. His “pilgrimage” to the heart of darkness should have set-off alarm bells in both the Tea Party and libertarian movements, but it was more or less glossed over.

In October of 2010, Jason Zengerle noted the following in a long article about Rand Paul:

    At a private office in Dupont Circle, he talked foreign policy with Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly, three prominent neocons who’d been part of an effort to defeat him during the primary. “He struck me as genuinely interested in trying to understand why people like us were so apoplectic,” Senor says of their two-hour encounter. “He wanted to get educated about our problem with him. He wasn’t confrontational, and he wasn’t disagreeable. He didn’t seem cemented in his views. He was really in absorption mode.”

Rand was in “absorption mode,” in other words he was sucking up the neocon ideology of confrontation with the enemies of Israel, its advocacy of mass murder, and the seemingly endless piling up of war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

Prior to this, in 2009, the Rand Paul campaign issued a press release spelling out his neocon take on Gitmo and killing suspected terrorists without trial:

    “Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

    Dr. Paul believes in strong national defense and thinks military spending should be our country’s top budget priority. He has also called for a Constitutional declaration of war with Afghanistan.

Early on, Rand Paul was drinking the neocon kool-aid.

Paul’s support of Romney translates into support for more neocon wars, more mass murder, and more tyranny at home.

“If we take the candidate at his word, a Romney presidency would move toward war against Iran; closely align Washington with the Israeli right; leave troops in Afghanistan at least until 2014 and refuse to negotiate with the Taliban; reset the Obama administration’s ‘reset’ with Russia; and pursue a Reagan-like military buildup at home. The Washington Monthly dubbed Romney’s foreign policy vision the ‘more enemies, fewer friends’ doctrine, which is chillingly reminiscent of the world Obama inherited from Bush,” writes Ari Berman.

Romney’s foreign policy advisers are predominately neocon. On May 31, I wrote that “over seventy percent of the neocons who staged the illegal Iraq war have signed up as Mitt’s foreign policy advisors. It is the same old pro-Israel rogue’s gallery, including Elliott Cohen, Robert Kagan (who is behind Romney’s ‘American exceptionalism’ stance), Eric Edelman (one of Bush’s main neocons at the Pentagon), and Dan Senor.”

“Many of these advisors belonged to the PNAC, an influential neoconservative advocacy group founded in the ‘90’s. It has morphed into the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) launched by Kagan, Edelman and Senor. They advocate for regime change in Iran and a more confrontational stance with Russia. They are opposed to cuts in military spending,” writes Nancy Lindsay.

Patrick J. Buchanan has predicted Romney’s secretary of state will either be the irascible neocon John Bolton or the Israel-centric warmonger Joe Lieberman.

“On Tuesday at Manhattan’s B’nai Jeshurun Synagogue during a debate with J Street founder and President Jeremy Ben-Ami, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol predicted that the next U.S. Secretary of State in a Romney administration would be Senator Joe Lieberman,” Maidhc Ó Cathail wrote on May 19.

How is it possible Rand Paul would consent to crawling into bed with this gang of war criminals? Is it possible he was a neocon all along and rode the coattails of his father’s reputation in order to get elected to the Senate?

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Is Rand Paul A ‘Christian Zionist’?
« Reply #4 on: Mar 11, 2014, 12:08:24 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/01/17/is-rand-paul-a-christian-zionist/

Is Rand Paul A ‘Christian Zionist’?

Or does he just play one in the drama we call American politics?

by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
January 18, 2013

As Israel’s ultra-nationalist parties continue to gain traction, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to appease them by building "settlements" with US taxpayer dollars on Palestinian land, the hostility between Washington and Tel Aviv is coming out into the open. While tension has been building for a while – I would argue since George W. Bush’s second term, when Dubya balked at going along with the Cheney-neocon plan for war with Iran – it is now reaching a dramatic climax with the spectacle of the Israeli Prime Minister openly rebuking Washington for alleged "interference" in Israeli politics. This is rich coming from someone who made no secret of his preference for Mitt Romney, and it comes in response to the publication of a recent piece by Obama supporter and pro-Israel writer Jeffrey Goldberg detailing the President’s private remarks on the settlements question. Goldberg reported:

"When informed about the Israeli decision [to build more settlements], Obama, who has a famously contentious relationship with the prime minister, didn’t even bother getting angry. He told several people that this sort of behavior on Netanyahu’s part is what he has come to expect, and he suggested that he has become inured to what he sees as self-defeating policies of his Israeli counterpart.

"In the weeks after the UN vote, Obama said privately and repeatedly, ‘Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.’ With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation."


Netanyahu, in full campaign mode – the elections are next week – was quick to respond, as the Jerusalem Post reports:

"’I think everyone understands that only Israel’s citizens are those who will be the ones to determine who faithfully represents Israel’s vital interests,’ the prime minister said in his first direct response to Obama’s reported criticism.

"Netanyahu said over the past four years he had withstood ‘enormous pressure,’ including demands that Israel curb its pressure on Iran, withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, divide Jerusalem and stop building in the eastern part of the capital.

"’We fended off all those pressures, and I will continue to stand firm on Israel’s vital interests for the security of the citizens of Israel,’ he declared."


While the Post avers Netanyahu’s was a "direct response," in fact no names were mentioned, but everyone (especially in Israel) knows this "pressure" has been emanating from Washington. Joining Netanyahu in his denunciation of those pushy Americans was none other than "libertarian" Sen. Rand Paul (R-Gooberville). Fresh from a recent trip to Israel paid for by the American Family Association, a Christian fundamentalist activist group, the "libertarian" Senator and wannabe presidential candidate declared:

"’That’s an arrogant and presumptuous point of view and doesn’t further progress on anything,’ the senator said, and he returned to that view throughout the call as he discussed the location of Israel’s capital and Israeli settlements. Paul decried U.S. politicians who display ‘this flippant and arrogant’ attitude about internal Israeli affairs, saying that ‘no one can really know as much as people in the region’ about such matters. ‘It is not up to the U.S. to dictate’ to mayors and West Bank officials where housing goes, Paul added. Paul said he considers himself more pro-Israel than some pro-Israel audiences because ‘I’m for an independent, strong Israel that is not a dependent state, not a client state.’"

Siding with a foreign leader against an American President is always problematic for any US politician, but lest one think this is an example of political courage on Sen. Paul’s part, consider the context of his remarks. US military aid to Israel now exceeds $3.5 billion a year – not counting the value of special projects like the "Iron Dome" missile defense system the Senator is so enthralled by. Those billions pay for a program of systematic ethnic cleansing: Arabs are being forced off their lands, and "settlements" are being erected on the ruins of their former homes.

Surely the Senator – who, despite appearances, is no dope – knows this. And if he didn’t know it, surely he was educated on the subject in his meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas – although, oddly, in all the news reports of Paul’s trip to Israel, where hear nothing about this scheduled encounter.

Yes, it’s true: "no one can really know as much as the people in the region" – but aren’t the Palestinians people?

Pretending not to grasp the significance of the settlements issue, or of the larger issue of Palestine and the two-state solution, simply will not do – not for an alleged "leader" of the libertarian wing of the GOP, and certainly not for a somewhat over-eager presidential candidate who flaunts his ambitions. Since Israel could not exist – let alone bomb, invade and subjugate its Palestinian and Lebanese neighbors – without extensive US military and economic aid, it is viewed as America’s regional proxy. This is what "the people in the region" know and Sen. Paul appears not to want to know.

Paul has long since backed off his stance of wanting to end aid to Israel: he now says he would do it gradually, and would start cutting the aid budget by immediately ending it for countries "where they burn our flag," singling out Egypt and Pakistan and specifically exempting Israel.

Previously under attack by the Israel lobby for saying US aid to Israel ought to be ended – and just because he is, after all, his father‘s son – the Israel trip was meant to make amends, and Paul earned plaudits from the Lobby in this country for his efforts. The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin took a breather from her frantic campaign to impugn the character of Chuck Hagel to give the lesser Paul a thumbs up, having earlier contrasted him favorably with his father. Phil Klein exulted in the birth of "Zionist non-interventionism," which apparently means we pay the bills and don’t bother the Israelis as they ethnically cleanse Palestine of the Palestinians. Seth Lipsky, writing in the New York Post, hailed Paul’s comments as "the most supportive of Israel since Sarah Palin." Dave Weigel reveals more of the tortured rationalization for Paul’s conversion on the road to Jerusalem:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #5 on: Mar 11, 2014, 12:08:55 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/02/07/rand-pauls-war-against-radical-islam/

Rand Paul’s War Against “Radical Islam”

by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
February 08, 2013

Sen. Rand Paul wants to be taken seriously – as a presidential candidate, as heir to the energetic youth-oriented movement founded by his father, and as a foreign policy Deep Thinker. This last goal was supposed to have been approached, if not reached, by his much-anticipated foreign policy speech delivered at the Heritage Foundation the other day, which was supposed to give wonkish heft to his presidential ambitions.

Barely twenty minutes long, Sen. Paul’s peroration was two thirds Glenn Beck, and one third Robert Taft – with a dash of George Kennan thrown in for good measure. Right off the bat, however, he made the point he wanted to make: I am not my father. To which one can only add: you can say that again.

"Foreign policy," averred Paul the Younger, "is uniquely an arena where we should base decisions on the landscape of the world as it is . . . not as we wish it to be. I see the world as it is. I am a realist, not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist."

What is telling about his opening shot is how deftly he utilizes the language of the War Party to define – and restrict – the parameters of the foreign policy debate. As paleoconservative foreign policy analyst Daniel Larison has tirelessly pointed out, there is no such thing as "isolationism" in American politics: not today, not yesterday, and not ever. No one believes the US should isolate itself from the world and turn this country – connected to the rest of the globe by innumerable ties of trade, sympathy, and kinship – into the Western equivalent of the Hermit Kingdom. "Isolationism" is an epithet rather than a description of anyone’s real views, meant to stifle discussion rather than advance it.

Rand Paul surely knows this. He’s heard his father deny and deride the "isolationist" label, no doubt thousands of times, and so his choice of words may seem distinctly odd. It is, instead, a calculated effort to banish the looming image of the elder Paul, the nation’s leading non-interventionist, from the room, and he does so right off the bat. Indeed, the entire speech – and, come to think of it, his entire political career since being elected to the Senate – could be summed up in five words: I am not my father!

This rhetorical patricide accomplished, he pressed onward – and downward:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

The Mostly Mainstream Foreign Policy of Rand Paul
« Reply #6 on: Mar 11, 2014, 12:13:46 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://original.antiwar.com/steve-breyman/2013/03/26/the-mostly-mainstream-foreign-policy-of-rand-paul/

The Mostly Mainstream Foreign Policy of Rand Paul

Washington can sleep easy: Rand's no threat to the status quo

by Steve Breyman
Antiwar.com
March 27, 2013

One thing you can say about Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is that he’s a crafty politician. His thirteen-hour filibuster to protest President Obama’s nomination of National Security Advisor John Brennan as CIA chief caused a stir across the political spectrum. Paul’s action was the high point of the brief debate about Obama’s reliance on drones that Brennan’s nomination sparked. Paul was flabbergasted and angry that he could not get Brennan, Attorney General Eric Holder, or any other administration official to answer his question as to whether the President believed he had the power to kill by drone on American soil an American accused of being a terrorist bent on imminent harm. Several senators on both sides of the aisle used the occasion to pressure the President to release the legal rationales underlying the drone program (an associated, unclassified memo leaked to the public), which he finally did after much foot dragging, and attempts to release but some of the documents.

A sad spectacle in opaqueness it was. Sad was the need for the United States Senate to hold a top-level appointment hostage in order to receive documents that were its due. Sad is the administration’s continued power to play, in the words of Glenn Greenwald, "accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner . . . powers . . . exercised in the dark." Sad is Congress’s failure to substantially challenge the drone program following release of the memos (there are a few bills floating around to limit executive drone power, and to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, legislation that will, sadly, go nowhere).

One thing you cannot say about Paul is that he has a foreign policy that differs much from that of the Republican and Democratic mainstreams, despite the clamor from the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain worked themselves into twinned frenzies at Paul’s chutzpah over drone targets. These guys, and their echo chamber in the media, dearly love Hellfire-armed Predators, even when directed by Obama. McCain went so far as to refer to Paul, and his Tea Party compatriot Sen. Ted Cruz from Texas, who joined the filibuster after encouragement from party chair Reince Priebus, as "wacko birds." Paul poses a mostly personal (not policy) challenge to the Republican dinosaurs. It’s telling that McCain’s epithet came not following Paul’s disavowal of the Civil Rights Act, but when he appeared to break with the reigning Washington foreign policy consensus over drones.

How big a threat does Paul pose to Washington’s foreign-policy-as-usual? Not much of one (though this hasn’t stopped consensus defenders from arguing the contrary).

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Rand Paul, Defender of the Faith
« Reply #7 on: Mar 11, 2014, 12:27:11 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/06/19/rand-paul-defender-of-the-faith/

Rand Paul, Defender of the Faith

by Philip Giraldi
Antiwar.com
June 20, 2013

If Senator Rand Paul truly listened to his father for all those years why does he sometimes act like Mitt Romney? To be sure he has taken some positive positions regarding the surveillance state and the use of drones, though even there he frequently comes out with a zinger that suggests that he is not so much thoughtful and principled as grandstanding. His comments objecting to the domestic use of lethal drones notoriously granted an exemption to targeting anyone who has been "charged" with a crime. Or, putting it more anecdotally, when someone is coming "out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

In spite of his holding a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rand’s foreign policy blunders are legion, to include his recent baseless allegations that Defense Department nominee Chuck Hagel might have some unsavory foreign connections. A clueless Rand frequently appears to be in thrall to his advisers, who themselves are nurturing his presidential aspirations, to include a number of leading neoconservatives and ex-Romneyites like Dan Senor and Bill Kristol. It is no surprise that the esteemed senator from Kentucky has swallowed whole the "radical Islam is the enemy" shtick that he has been fed while asserting Iran "is engaged in the pursuit of nuclear weapons and supports terrorism across the globe." Apparently lack of evidence for a nuclear weapons program does not inhibit believing otherwise while support of global terror sounds more like Washington than Tehran, but Rand has failed to dig deep enough to make those distinctions.

Rand has, of course, made his obligatory pilgrimage en famille to Israel to see "our Judeo Christian roots" while simultaneously kissing Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring. The trip was paid for by the anti-gay evangelical American Family Association, whose spokesman once asserted that Hitler surrounded himself with homosexual storm troopers because "straights" would have had moral objections to his policies. While in Israel, Rand discovered the meme that he has been beating to death ever since: that the U.S. should stop giving aid to countries that "are burning our flag and chanting ‘Death to America’…No one is accusing Israel of that." Which leaves Israel as a beacon unto humanity while a bunch of Arab countries stand around looking guilty. Later on the trip Rand advised the Palestinians that they would be punished by sanctions if they tried to declare statehood through the United Nations even if they refrain from chanting or burning flags.

After returning from his root finding and his road to Damascus discovery about chanting flag arsonists, Rand Paul confronted Secretary of State nominee John Kerry, demanding an end to arms supplies for Egypt as those feckless Gippos have been saying so many nasty things about Israelis and "they only understand…strength." On the next day he called on the Administration to publicly declare that an attack on Israel would be considered the same as an attack on the U.S. At the end of May he spoke before a Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) gathering and picked up the theme yet again, praising the ZOA for its courageous display of support for his demand to end the flow of money and arms to Egypt and Pakistan. But not to Israel. Per Paul, "the U.S. and Israel have a great shared religious and cultural history."

Well, Rand is at it again, second verse same as the first except that he has now also discovered that there is also a plot against Christians being organized by those dastardly Muslims who run around shouting "Death to America," presumably in English so Rand can understand it, while torching Old Glory. Speaking at the evangelical Faith and Freedom (sic) conference in Washington on June 13th, Paul asserted that those very same chanters are "haters of Christianity," that "American taxpayer dollars are being used to enable a war on Christianity in the Middle East, and I believe that must end."

Well, for once I agree with Rand but somehow I have heard a different version of what might be going on. If one goes back to 2001, it would have been possible to discover ancient and vibrant Christian communities in both Syria and Iraq. As Rand has noted, though without being aware of the implications of what he was actually saying, U.S. taxpayer money brought about an invasion of Iraq that has all but destroyed the Christian minority, which had previously been protected by Saddam Hussein’s largely secular regime. Now the same thing is about to happen in Syria, where, ironically, many of the Iraqi Christians had sought refuge. So yes Rand, you are correct in observing that U.S. taxpayer dollars have all but eliminated a Christian presence that goes back two millennia, but you have to think a bit more about who is doing what to whom.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-libertarians-advocate-everyone-go-out-run-around-with-no-clothes-on-and-smoke-pot/

Rand Paul: Libertarians Advocate “Everyone Go Out… Run Around with No Clothes On and Smoke Pot”

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 14, 2013

In an effort to further woo the Republican establishment ahead of a probable presidential run, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has demeaned the libertarian philosophy of his father, former Texas representative Ron Paul.

“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” he said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

Rand Paul made the comment at a sold-out Republican dinner in Iowa, the state where the first caucuses are held in the lead up to presidential nominations.

Paul will also visit two other primary states, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He will meet with Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus later this month in an effort deliver his libertarian and tea party followers into the Republican establishment fold.

He also plans to deliver a speech at the Reagan Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Reagan, who upheld the anti-libertarian policies of big government and the warfare state, is often described as a libertarian conservative, same as Rand Paul is now being described.

In addition to visiting primary states, Paul will meet with evangelical pastors in an effort to woo the conservative Christian vote.

Some of the pastors “who traveled with Paul, a Methodist, said they engaged in deep conversations with him about the Bible and his faith. Several of the pastors said they are still assessing the senator’s views,” The Washington Post reports.

“Straight libertarianism has nothing Christian about it,” pastor Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa, told the newspaper. “I know a lot of people attribute him to be a libertarian. My impression so far is that he’s not as libertarian as possibly his father was, but I’d like to explore that more.”

Sherman traveled with Paul to Israel in January. The trip aligned the Senator from Kentucky more closely to the neocon faction of the Republican party and its Israel-centric policies.

“Absolutely we stand with Israel,” he told Breitbart News after the tour. “What I think we should do is announce to the world — and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

“The Israel trip served a dual purpose, drawing Paul closer to evangelicals, who identify with the Jewish state and push for strengthened U.S. aid to Israel, and giving him a chance to separate his foreign policy views from those of his father, who is a critic of U.S. financial aid to Israel and other countries,” the Post reports.

Unlike his father, Paul believes the United States should keep many of its overseas military bases. “There are some who want to come completely home. Some want to stay forever. And the answer might be somewhere in the middle that we’ll still have bases in places, but we don’t necessarily have to maybe have 900 bases. Maybe we have less,” he said in April, embracing the neocon military stance.

Sherman said Paul has turned his back on other libertarian issues as well. “He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” he said.

“He’s closer to our philosophy than he is to what I would define as the hyper-libertarian position,” said David Lane, an organizer of evangelical pastors and voters who arranged Paul’s trip to Israel.

Appearing before the Heritage Foundation in February, Paul paid homage to the neocon vision and the war on Islam.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Rand Paul opposes GMO labeling, and hence your "right to know"
« Reply #9 on: Mar 11, 2014, 12:47:14 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-votes-no-on-gmo-labeling/

Rand Paul Votes NO on GMO Labeling

Farm Wars
Friday, June 22, 2012

Thought that endorsing Romney was bad enough? In another turn of events that exposes the corporatist leanings of Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky, he has voted NO on a GMO labeling amendment to the farm bill “to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.” The following is taken from the United States Senate Website.




http://www.naturalnews.com/040557_rand_paul_gmo_labeling_government_power.html
   
Analysis: Rand Paul's response to GMO labeling and the proper role of limited government

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
NaturalNews.com
Friday, May 31, 2013

(NaturalNews) Like many Natural News readers, I was astonished when Sen. Rand Paul voted against a recent amendment that would have allowed states to enact their own local laws regarding GMO labeling. Rand Paul's answer to why he voted against the amendment, however, is a coherent argument that deserves additional discussion. Paul is, it turns out, fully in favor of consumers being fully informed of what they're buying, but he's incredibly cautious about handing government new powers to regulate food labeling.

His response to why he voted down the recent amendment is as follows:

I am an opponent of the FDA's war on natural foods and farmers. I've stood up for raw milk, hemp and natural supplements. I fought to take power AWAY from the government on these issues. So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire. That's what we fight against. That's what the statists do. Take a look at a pretty thorough rundown on the recent GMO amendment. There were many more problems with it, including the potential the FDA could have assumed broad new rule making authority if this badly written amendment had passed. - Sen. Rand Paul

This argument has merit. Let's examine it more closely...

The proper role of government: people vs. corporations

Since the story on the GMO labeling amendment vote first broke, Natural News has ditched Facebook as its article comments engine and switched over the using Disqus. This has had the remarkable result of significantly raising the IQ of the discussions now taking place on articles we publish here at Natural News. Instead of the usual idiot blather that typifies Facebook comments, the Disqus comments are thoughtful, intelligent and informative. (It has very nearly restored my faith in humanity...)

Using the Disqus engine, a great many people have commented on why Rand Paul (and Sen. Ted Cruz) were both right to vote down that recent amendment on GMO labeling. They aren't against GMO labeling, I'm told; they're against expanding the power of the FDA in ways that might be even more dangerous down the road.

Government always abuses new powers

Yes, we all want consumers to know what they are eating, but there are different ways to achieve that result. Rand Paul wants to make sure government is not granted power that can be abused, and it is of course absolutely true that the FDA is essentially run by Monsanto, Big Pharma and other corporate interests. So we don't want to give a criminal government more power, especially when that government is already grossly abusing its power with the DOJ-AP scandal, the IRS targeting scandal, Obama's secret kill lists, secret military prisons and so on.

So what is the proper role of government on this issue of labeling? Here's my take on it, which may differ slightly from Sen. Rand Paul but is essentially based on the fundamental principles of liberty:

The proper role of government in a free society is to protect the rights of individuals while regulating the behavior of corporations.

Why is this so? For starters, every individual is a minority of one. To protect the rights of the individual is the noblest cause of any government because individuals are relatively powerless against corporate power and government power. An individual is the most fragile member of society because one person's liberties can be so easily maligned by government gone bad or government colluding with corporations to undermine individual rights and liberties.

At the same time, governments must regulate and limit the power of corporations. Why? Because every corporation wants to become a global monopoly. Every corporation wants to keep its secrets secret. "Never ask how sausage is made," you've probably heard. Similarly, you don't really want to know how Apple manufactures its iPhones in Chinese slave factories or how Kellogg's uses GMOs to churn out breakfast cereals made with fake blueberry bits, either. Corporations have all sorts of dark secrets they want to keep secret, and GMOs are just one secret among many.

In addition, every corporation wants to dominate the market and ultimately dominate the consumer. Sure, corporations can disguise all these desires in flowery commercials and feel-good publicity campaigns, but at their core, corporations are like cancer tumors: they want to take over the entire system. It is a proper role of government to prevent these corporations from becoming monopolists and scammers. If government didn't limit interest rates of credit cards, for example, many banks would be charging 100% APR or higher. Anything they can get away with!

The big problem in America today is that the U.S. government has spent much of its power doing precisely the opposite of what it's supposed to do. It is protecting corporations while overrunning individual liberties. This is the explanation behind banker bailouts, Obama's crony capitalism handouts to failed solar companies and local tax breaks to corporate giants (like the city of Austin giving Apple, Inc. millions in tax breaks).

If food labeling laws didn't already exist today, food companies would lobby against them

If food ingredients labeling laws were being debated today for the first time, you can bet companies like General Mills, Kraft Foods, Kellogg's and Cargill would be arguing that "consumers have no need to see the ingredients at all!" Ingredients lists are "confusing to consumers," they would argue. "And they raise the cost of food!" This is the argument they use against labeling GMOs, too.

Yet nearly all of us would agree that it is in the interest of society that corporations be forced by law to list the ingredients in every food product they sell. This is a case where government forces corporations to do things they would absolutely never do on their own.

And here's where I slightly disagree with the libertarians: the free market alone cannot solve this problem. Corporations will NEVER disclose such things unless they are forced to. Some libertarians will argue that consumer pressure alone can force companies to engage in things like GMO labeling, yet experience tells us this is simply not so. When the food industry is so completely dominated by only a handful of companies, consumers have no real alternatives through which to apply market choice forces. If food ingredients labels were not required, all the big food companies would simply decide to remove the full ingredients lists and print only the ingredients they want you to see. What are you gonna do about it? Starve? Live off a backyard garden? I doubt it...

So even though I am a proponent of small, limited government -- and even though I consider myself to be a libertarian at heart -- there are a few special situations where government has a legitimate role. Limiting and regulating large, domineering corporations is precisely one of those roles.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

With poverty skyrocketing, Rand Paul Says The Poor Are Getting Rich
« Reply #10 on: Mar 11, 2014, 12:49:41 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/with-record-number-of-americans-falling-into-poverty-senator-rand-paul-says-the-poor-are-getting-rich/26689

With Record Number Of Americans Falling Into Poverty, Senator Rand Paul Says The Poor Are Getting Rich



By Tanya Somanader
Global Research
September 20, 2011

Census data revealed today that a record 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010. But in an aptly-timed hearing entitled “Is Poverty A Death Sentence,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) flat out rejected the idea that poverty in the U.S is worrisome. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Health subcommittee, Paul offered a dissertation-length statement on how the correlation between poverty and death is only found in the Third World and to claim such a connection within the U.S. is nothing more than “socialism” and “tyranny.”

Stating that “poor children today are healthier than middle-class adults a generation ago,” he even blamed the poor for their own health problems, suggesting “behavioral factors” like a higher incidence of smoking, obesity, or weak family support structures as the only correlation between poverty and health.

Citing the deficit as a primary priority, Paul questioned whether federal low-income programs are “creating unnecessary and unhealthy dependence on government.” He unequivocally declared that “poverty is not a state of permanence” and that “the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.”

PAUL: We also need to understand that poverty is not a state of permanence. When you look at people in the bottom 5th of the economic ladder — those at the bottom — only 5 percent are there after 16 years. People move up, the American dream does exist…The rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.

Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/13/318259/with-record-number-of-americans-falling-into-poverty-rand-paul-says-the-poor-are-getting-rich/

Summing up his thesis, Paul said, “Rather than bemoan or belabor something [poverty] that is really truly something that is overwhelmingly being treated in our country, we should maybe give more credit to the American system, the American dream, and give credit to what capitalism has done to eradicate poverty in this country.”

First of all, the notion that the poor are getting richer faster than the rich requires an impressive level of ignorance. Currently, income inequality in the United States is greater than that of Pakistan and Ethiopia and higher than at any other time since the Great Depression. Indeed, thanks to exceedingly low tax rates, the rich are getting richer, with the richest one percent earning nearly 25 percent of the total income [.pdf] in the country.

Meanwhile, nearly one in three middle-class Americans is slipping down the income ladder as an adult. And with stagnant wages and the purchasing power of the minimum wage at a 51-year low, it’s hard to see how suddenly “the poor are getting richer faster.”

What’s more, Paul’s overwhelming deluge of pseudo-evidence to downplay the connection between poverty and poor health cannot shake incontrovertible facts. As the American Journal of Public Health found, deaths resulting from poverty, income inequality, and low social support each totaled more than homicide deaths in 2000.

Paul’s claim that Americans now have a greater life expectancy still doesn’t change the fact that low-income individuals can expect to live a shorter life due to poverty. Indeed, a report released at the hearing noted that “this is the first time in our history that children born in certain parts of the United States can expect to live shorter lives than their parents’ generation.”

---------------------------------------


*   "The budget [by Senator Rand Paul] provides two years of war funding, at the President’s requested levels."

*   "The food stamp program and the child nutrition program" (cut)

*   "The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program" (eliminate)

*   "Affordable Housing Program" (eliminate)

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20120523011347/http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Proof: Rand Paul Is Controlled Opposition
« Reply #11 on: Mar 11, 2014, 12:58:41 am »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://truthstreammedia.com/proof-rand-paul-is-controlled-opposition/

Proof: Rand Paul Is Controlled Opposition

By Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton
Truthstream Media
February 13, 2014



Rand Paul’s quiet backing to the tune of millions by Machiavellian operative Karl Rove and his public association with George P. Bush and other establishment GOP figures make it all too clear that the grassroots liberty movement generated to support Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns was just fodder for the co-opted rise of Rand Paul.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RklWbjAiE4

The Atlantic, who in January 2014 dubbed Paul the GOP frontrunner, explained the advantage for borrowing from his father’s network of support:

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #12 on: Mar 11, 2014, 02:48:47 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Rand Paul has been in the U.S. Senate for over three years now (at taxpayer expense).

During that time, has he promoted or even mentioned any of the following bills?

If not -- and if he's such a friggin hero -- then WHY not?

The NEED Act.

--  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2990.IH:

--  http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/HR-2990.pdf

--  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zarlenga/sequesters-shutdowns-and-_b_4086071.html

The American Freedom Agenda Act.

-- http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11790

-- http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20071026194436401

-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-paul-i_b_69042.html

The Surveillance State Repeal Act.

-- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2818/text

-- http://news.antiwar.com/2013/07/25/rep-holt-introduces-surveillance-state-repeal-act/

The American Traveler Dignity Act.

-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2438.IH:

-- http://www.infowars.com/stop-tsa-molestation-ron-paul-introduces-american-traveler-dignity-act-of-2011/

The American Sovereignty Restoration Act.

-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1146:

-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2005-03-08/html/CREC-2005-03-08-pt1-PgE381-3.htm

The Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

-- http://www.freepress.net/release/336

-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5353:

The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act.

-- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3553

-- http://www.progress.org/tpr/genetically-engineered-food-right-to-know-act-2/

The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act.

-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2306:

-- http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/end-federal-marijuana-prohibition

The Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act.

-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.897:

-- http://tarpley.net/audio/20130521-WGT_on_C2C.mp3

-- http://tarpley.net/audio/20130515-WGT_on_GB.mp3

-- http://tarpley.net/2013/05/08/warren-offers-bill-to-force-fed-to-finance-student-loans/

The Paper Ballot Act.

-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6200:

-- http://www.petitiononline.com/hndcount/petition.html

-- http://www.votersunite.org/takeaction/handcounted.asp

-- http://hackingdemocracy.com

The Voter Freedom Act.

-- http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul194.html

-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr3600ih/pdf/BILLS-110hr3600ih.pdf

The Freedom Debate Act.

-- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2478.IH:
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #13 on: Mar 18, 2014, 01:33:13 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-has-set-the-world-on-a-path-to-war/5373623

Washington Has Set The World On A Path To War

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, March 16, 2014
paulcraigroberts.org



Why is Washington so opposed to Crimean self-determination?  The answer is that one of the main purposes of Washington’s coup in Kiev was to have the new puppet government evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base in Crimea. Washington cannot use the government Washington has installed in Ukraine for that purpose if Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine.

What Washington has made completely obvious is that “self-determination” is a weapon used by Washington in behalf of its agenda.  If self-determination advances Washington’s agenda, Washington is for it.  If self-determination does not advance Washington’s agenda, Washington is against it.

The Washington-initiated UN Security Council resolution, vetoed by Russia, falsely declares that the referendum in Crimea, a referendum demanded by the people, “can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea; and calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status.”

Washington could not make it any clearer that Washington totally opposes self-determination by Crimeans.

Washington claims, falsely, that the referendum cannot be valid unless the entire population of Ukraine votes and agrees with the decision by Crimeans.  Note that when Washington stole Kosovo from Serbia, Washington did not let Serbians vote.

But lets overlook Washington’s rank hypocrisy and self-serving double-standards. Let’s apply Washington’s argument that in order to be valid any change in Crimea’s status requires a vote on the part of the population of the country that it departs.  If this is the case, then Crimea has never been a part of  Ukraine.

Under Washington’ s interpretation of international law, Ukraine is still a part of Russia.

When Khrushchev transferred Crimea (but not Sevastopol, the Black Sea base) to Ukraine, Russians did not get to vote. Therefore, according to Washington’s own logic it is invalid to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine.  That also goes for other parts of Russia that Lenin transferred to Ukraine.  Under the logic of Washington’s UN resolution, large parts of Ukraine are not legitimately part of Ukraine. They have remained parts of Russia, because Russians were not allowed to vote on their transfer to Ukraine.  Thus, there is no issue about “Russia annexing Crimea,” because, according to Washington’s logic, Crimea is still a part of Russia.

Do you need any more proof that the Ukrainian crisis is made up out of thin air by schemers in Washington who created the entire crisis for one purpose–to weaken Russia militarily.

No one was surprised that the New York Times published on March 14 the warmongering rant, written by neoconservatives for John McCain, which described Washington’s aggression in Ukraine as Russia’s aggression.  The US government overthrows an elected democratic Ukrainian government and then accuses Russia of “invading and annexing Crimea” in order to divert attention from Washington’s overthrow of Ukrainian democracy.  There is no elected government in Kiev.  The stooges acting as a government in Kiev were put in office by Washington.  Who else choose them?

What surprised some was Rand Paul joining the hysteria. Rand Paul wrote his propagandistic rant against Russia for Time. Rand Paul claims, falsely, that Putin has invaded Crimea and that it is an affront to “the international community.”  First of all, the decision of Crimea to leave Ukraine is a decision of the Crimean population and the elected government, not a decision by Russia.  But, for the sake of argument, let’s take Rand Paul’s lie as the truth:  Is “Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community” like Washington’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Washington-sponsored invasions of Libya and Syria, and Washington’s ongoing slaughter of Pakistanis and Yemenis with drones, and Washington’s violation of Iran’s sovereignty with illegal sanctions, and Washington’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty by overthrowing the elected government and imposing Washington’s stooges?

If Putin is behaving as Rand Paul ignorantly asserts, Putin is just following the precedents established by Clinton in Serbia, by Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, and by Obama in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.  Washington’s argument is reduced to: “We, the exceptional and indispensable nation can behave this way, but no other country can.”

As some Americans have misplaced hopes in Rand Paul, it is just as well that he revealed in Time that he is just another fool prostituting himself for the neoconservative warmongers and the military/security complex. If Rand Paul is the hope for America, then clearly there is no hope.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #14 on: Apr 26, 2014, 01:48:13 pm »
 

Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1989
    Posts
  • CO2 is plant food!
    • This Forum
You don't know her position on NSA wiretapping? Really Rand?! Do you not look into candidates positions BEFORE you endorse them, or is it you JUST DON'T CARE AND YOU ARE JUST PAYING LIP SERVICE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS?!?!

Breaking: Rand Paul Endorses Sen. Susan Collins, Despite A Record of Big Spending and Gov. Spying

http://benswann.com/breaking-rand-paul-endorses-sen-susan-collins-despite-a-record-of-big-spending-and-gov-spying/

By: Ben Swann Apr 26, 2014

Bangor, Maine- Senator Rand Paul provided the keynote address at the Maine GOP Convention this Saturday. Sen. Paul spoke before a packed house, excited to hear from the likely Republican Presidential candidate. What surprised some of the crowd and simultaneously delighted others, however was when Paul endorsed long time Maine Senator Susan Collins.

    “I whole-heartedly endorse Senator Collins for re-election. I think she is doing a great job for Maine and for the country.”

Speaking to the Portland Herald Press minutes before taking the stage, Paul said, “I whole-heartedly endorse Senator Collins for re-election. I think she is doing a great job for Maine and for the country.” He went on to say that he was unaware of her stance on the NSA saying, “I don’t really know, exactly, what her position is on the NSA; you’d have to ask her about that.”

Collins, who is running unopposed on the Republican side for re-election in 2014 has a record on government wiretapping and FISA courts that is quite clear. A quick search of her voting record.

She voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act’s roving wiretaps in February of 2011.
Voted NO on requiring a FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

Sen. Paul told the crowd in Bangor that he doesn’t “see division here (in Maine), I see unity. I smell victory.”

One of the major questions for Republicans in Maine is whether the party is unified or divided between the establishment and liberty wings. For her part, Collins spent her time at the convention blasting the policies of the Obama administration and pushing back against, “federal overreach.” But Collins herself hardly has a small government voting record.

Collins voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010 but that doesn’t mean she is a small government legislator. Her record on stimulus and government spending is not strong. Collins, like so many Republicans and Democrats has voted for the huge stimulus packages of 2008 and 2009

She Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy in September of 2008. Voted YES on an additional $825 billion for economic recovery package in February of 2009 and then in July of the same year voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. She also voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program.

    Sen. Paul told the crowd in Bangor that he doesn’t “see division here (in Maine), I see unity. I smell victory.”

When it comes to the reach of federal agencies, Collins voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases and voted NO on banning eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. While Rand Paul was vocally against the internet sales tax of 2013, Collins voted for it.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #15 on: Apr 27, 2014, 01:14:44 pm »
 

Emancipator

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 17
    Posts
New here. Rand Paul lost it when he publicly sided with Mitt in the Republican primary session. He will never get my vote.
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #16 on: Aug 17, 2014, 03:13:37 pm »
 

tahoeblue

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 460
    Posts
I keep expecting Rand Paul to be invited to Bilderberg and him accepting.
 

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership
« Reply #17 on: Nov 09, 2014, 02:04:01 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19439-rand-paul-to-obama-prioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
The New American
03 November 2014

Politics, the saying goes, makes strange bedfellows. In presidential politics, the cozy compromises with the unconstitutional seem even more unsettling.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a man whose personal popularity and political fortunes have increased in direct proportion to his spreading of his libertarian-leaning ideals, has now publicly embraced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an unprecedented sovereignty surrender masquerading as a multi-national trade pact.

Paul’s speech coincided with the TPP ministerial meeting conducted October 19-24 in Sydney, Australia.

Speaking at the Center for the National Interest dinner in New York City on October 23, Senator Paul said:

    Our national power is a function of the national economy. During the Reagan renaissance, our strength in the world reflected our successful economy.

    Low growth, high unemployment, and big deficits have undercut our influence in the world. Americans have suffered real consequences from a weak economy.

    President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

Why would Rand Paul, a man who has in the past demonstrated a remarkable adherence to the principles of the Constitution, make his own “pivot” away from those doctrines and toward a pact as pernicious as the TPP? Perhaps the answer is found in this paragraph from a story on Paul’s speech printed in The Diplomat: "As a Republican presidential hopeful, Paul likely recognizes that his and the party’s interests are best served by trying to find some issues on which Republicans can cooperate with the administration. This would give the American electorate confidence that the Republican Party is interested in governing, and would make it harder for Democrats to use disgust with the Republican Party to mobilize the Democratic base in the 2016 election."

With the exception of Paul’s father, former congressman Ron Paul, it seems that when constitutionalists begin to crave the chair in the Oval Office, their fidelity to the principles of republicanism is swapped in exchange for approval by the principals of the Republicans.

If Senator Paul’s purpose in pushing for the quick passage of the TPP is to draw so close to the Democrats that they can’t stab him, then he’s probably picked the wrong issue.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Mitch McConnell: Rand Paul 'Can Count on Me' in 2016
« Reply #18 on: Nov 09, 2014, 02:12:16 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/07/Mitch-McConnell-Rand-Paul-Can-Count-On-Me-In-2016

Mitch McConnell: Rand Paul 'Can Count on Me' in 2016

If Sen. Rand Paul decides to run for president, expect soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to back him up.

by Charlie Spiering
Breitbart.com
07 November 2014

"Whatever he decides to do," McConnell told the Lexington Herald-Leader’s Sam Youngman. "I don't think he's made a final decision on that. But he'll be able to count on me."

Paul endorsed McConnell in his Republican primary and campaigned with the senior Kentucky senator in his re-election race.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #19 on: Nov 10, 2014, 03:02:30 am »
 

JTCoyoté

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 260
    Posts
  • "I Shall Never Surrender!" "Remember The Alamo!"
I keep expecting Rand Paul to be invited to Bilderberg and him accepting.

...Chuckle...

Doubt either event will happen... The Aqua-Buddha-Berg perhaps...

Over the top? Well maybe, maybe not... think about it... what did the founder of the multi-headed monster of crazed elitists say long ago...

JTCoyoté

"Conceal the very fact of our existence from
the Profane. If they discover us, conceal our
real objective by profession of benevolence.
If our real objective is perceived, PRETEND
TO DISBAND and relinquish the whole thing,
but assume another name and put forward
new agents."
~Adam Weishaupt,
founder of the Illuminati, May 1st, 1776.
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #20 on: Mar 14, 2015, 05:53:11 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/27/rand-paul-helps-squash-tea-party-challenge-to-mcconnell/

Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge

Patrick Howley
The Daily Caller
3/27/2013



The Daily Caller has learned that Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is endorsing Sen. Mitch McConnell for re-election in 2014, ending speculation that Paul would back a tea party challenge to the Senate minority leader.

“Rand Paul has endorsed McConnell,” Jesse Benton, McConnell’s 2014 campaign manager, told The Daily Caller.

Benton, who has worked for both Rand Paul and his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, is credited by insiders with brokering Paul’s support for McConnell.

The move quashes a determined effort by Kentucky Republican Liberty Caucus chairman David Adams, who launched Paul’s Senate bid and served as Paul’s campaign manager through the 2010 primaries, and other tea party leaders to mount a primary challenge against McConnell.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #21 on: Mar 14, 2015, 05:53:38 pm »
 

Geolibertarian

  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 1119
    Posts
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/

Rand Paul’s Munich

In signing the Cotton letter he’s become the Neville Chamberlain of the liberty movement

by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
March 11, 2015

If you read the letter circulated by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), and signed by forty-seven GOP Senators, addressed to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," what’s striking is its condescending tone:

"It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system…."

Sounding like Miss Manners instructing a boorish host on the proper placement of table napkins, Cotton goes on to make a series of highly debatable assertions about the how the US Constitution regulates the making of international agreements and the role of Congress in the process. He reminds the Iranians that all treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, while neglecting to say how the as-yet-to-be-reached agreement with Iran qualifies as a treaty – say, in the same sense that the establishment of NATO did. This a technical legal point that is nevertheless significant: treaties have no time limit, but a principal objection to the pending agreement with Iran made by its opponents is that it is limited in duration to, at most, ten to fifteen years.

A "so-called congressional-executive agreement," Sen. Cotton avers, also requires congressional approval: that President Obama will doubtless bypass Congress in this matter, however, is left unmentioned. Also ignored is the fact that the members of that august body will have no recourse but to sit there and take it. Many of the measures designed to isolate Iran can be lifted by executive order. Eventually, however, the President will have to come to Congress to lift the worst of the sanctions permanently, but by that time, as Dan Drezner points out in the Washington Post, the political and diplomatic consequences of reneging on the agreement are likely to deter Congress and whoever sits in the Oval Office from backtracking.

The letter, in short, is without any real substance: as Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif noted, it betrays a lack of understanding of international law, not to mention the recent history of US executive agreements with other nations – the overwhelming majority of which have never been subject to congressional approval. Zarif went on to point out that “the world is not the United States," a geographical reality neocons like Sen. Cotton have trouble acknowledging. "If the current negotiation with P5+1 results in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action," Zarif observed, "it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution."

Will the United States risk alienating its allies and defying the Security Council in order to appease Benjamin Netanyahu? Sen. Cotton certainly hopes so, but the chances of this happening are close to nil.

The Cotton letter, said Zarif, is a "propaganda ploy," but on whose behalf? Clearly it is a follow-up to Netanyahu’s speech before Congress and is designed to torpedo the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran. A shorter version might have read simply: "Are you sure you want to sign an agreement with these guys – when it will probably be rendered inoperative once we Republicans take the White House?"

Given that, the fact that among the signers were three prospective GOP presidential hopefuls – Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul – underscores the propagandistic nature of this ploy. That Rubio and Cruz signed on is hardly surprising: they have been among the most bombastic of the Republican field when it comes to foreign policy, never deviating from the Fox News-neocon party line. The real stunner was the conquest of the sometime anti-interventionist junior Senator from Kentucky.

I say "conquest" because, although he voted for sanctioning Iran in 2012, Sen. Paul has recently been a vocal opponent of imposing new sanctions, and has broken with his Republican colleagues on the whole question of how to deal with Tehran, averring that we must give diplomacy a chance. Less than two months ago, speaking at a forum for GOP presidential aspirants, he directly confronted Rubio and Cruz:

"Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in 100,000 troops?I’m a big fan of trying to exert and trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions. But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you’re ruining it."

If Sen. Paul is against "ruining it," why did he sign a letter that seeks to do exactly that? Is he now ready to send ground troops into Iran? Is he ready to bomb them?

While this is certainly a project that is not inherently misconceived, the result in practice has been a confusing variety of positions that have satisfied no one. As Jacob Heilbrunn pointed out in The National Interest, Paul’s attempts to cozy up to Sheldon Adelson – not to mention his flattery of the staunchly anti-Paul Free Beacon by offering them exclusives on his cruel and ill-conceived legislative attempts to cut off lifesaving aid to Palestinian children and keep the Palestinian Authority out of the International Criminal Court – "suggests opportunism rather than conviction. Nor is this all," writes Heilbrunn:

"There’s also the problem that the neocon opposition to Paul is not rooted in a lack of outreach on his part. It can’t be altered with tidbits about bills he’s proposing. It’s based on a sincere and fervent opposition to his foreign policy stands. Finally, cozying up to his detractors is no way to attract the kind of serious foreign policy thinkers that Paul would need to mount a serious campaign even as Jeb Bush seems intent on nailing down anyone of consequence.

"As the primary season heats up, Paul’s rivals will increasingly seek to use him as a foil to buttress their own positions. If he continues on his current course, Paul could torpedo his chances of promoting a debate about foreign affairs in the primary season before the contest has truly begun."


The moment Sen. Paul signed the Cotton letter, Heilbrunn’s prophecy became a political reality. Rand Paul has pulled the rug out from under his attempts to open up a real foreign policy debate in the GOP – and perhaps also from under his presidential aspirations. After all, his marketing of himself as "a different kind of Republican" has been undermined, perhaps fatally, by his joining the neoconservative "bomb bomb bomb Iran" chorus. The Senator and his supporters may regard this as an unfair characterization of his views, and it no doubt is, but this is how his stance is being perceived – and perception is reality in politics, and in human relations. In politics, and in life, one is judged in large part by the company one keeps – and in this instance, that means Senators Cotton, Cruz, and McCain.

What’s particularly galling about Rand Paul’s opportunism is not only that it reeks of insincerity, as Heilbrunn notes, but also that it isn’t even effective. He gains nothing by it: his neoconservative enemies are still attacking him, and even going at it more viciously once they smell his fear. That’s how bullies operate, and that the Senator allows himself to be bullied so easily speaks to the major flaw in his political persona, one that militates against his presidential ambitions.

The main quality one looks for in a presidential candidate is the capacity to exert leadership – that is, the ability to take a position, hold fast to it, and get others to follow. He gave the appearance of being able to do this with his famous anti-drone filibuster – but who, really, is in favor of giving the President the power to drone Americans while they’re sitting around a Starbucks? That’s why Senators Cruz and Mike Lee (R-Utah) didn’t hesitate to join him on the podium: it’s a popular position, one that almost no one opposes.

When the going gets tough, however, it’s a far different story as far as Senator Paul is concerned. Faced with vicious attacks from the neoconservative wing of his party, Senator Paul has become the libertarian Neville Chamberlain, meeting with Sheldon Adelson, reversing his position on foreign aid to Israel, and doing everything short of asking Jennifer Rubin out on a date. The Cotton letter is Rand Paul’s Munich, a betrayal of his libertarian and anti-interventionist constituency that will not be soon forgotten.

In spite of my early criticisms of Sen. Paul, I have always been a firm believer in the efficacy of libertarian electoral politics and the necessity of political realism, i.e. the idea that politics is not religion. I’ve been encouraged by the Senator’s often eloquent arguments against the War Party’s destructive policies, and for the past year or so I’ve praised him on many occasions in this space. Even when he endorsed bombing ISIS, whilst still holding out against putting US troops on the ground, I gave him the benefit of a doubt.

No more. By joining the wrecking crew of Cotton & Co., Sen. Paul has proven he cares more about gaining the approval of neoconservatives who will always hate him than he does about preventing a major war in the Middle East. What’s more, he clearly lacks the character it takes to be President of these United States – the sense of conviction that is the essence of leadership, whether in politics, commerce, sports, or any human endeavor.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

http://monetary.org
http://schalkenbach.org
 

Re: The Rand Paul Deception
« Reply #22 on: Jul 03, 2016, 08:00:44 pm »
 

Geniocrat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 8
    Posts
How about looking to the Constitution Party...... ????????????????????
 

 

Powered by EzPortal