Posted on 04/23/2010 4:08:18 PM PDT by NoLibZone
I've obtained a document that the Rand Paul campaign is circulating to those interested in his views on Israel...
[snip]
"Israel and the United States have a special relationship," Rand's position paper begins. "With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries."
[snip]
In one clear departure from his father, Rand states that: As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
"In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel."
I despise Ron Paul but I’m not willing to take the foolish leap of believing Rand to share all of his father’s views. This was a good statement. I hope he means it and if elected follows through.
” In one clear departure from his father, Rand states that:
As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.
Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.”
Ron Paul would agree with the above comments also. If father and son have a difference on Israel it lies elsewhere.
Real libertarians could care less about Israel versus Muslims. They don’t believe in any foreign military aid or engagement. I’m sure Rand Paul is just like his father on this.
As far as worldwide Muslim Jihad most libertarians are idiots. Being atheists they don’t get the religious dimensions of this eternal Muslim war. They just see a bunch of cartoon characters. Not real people with deadly passions. Not all libertarians are like this. Only 80% are. Their pot stash is more important than Europe being taken over by Islam
April 23, 2010
Philip Klein at The American Spectator shares Rand Paul's recent statement on Israel. You can read it here.
This is his "broadened" message to win votes. Klein writes that Rand Paul's point that he would not be opposed to Israel defending herself is a "clear departure" from his father. This disagreement with his father is incredibly minor, though. The Obama administration is currently engaged in an arms embargo with Israel and nothing in Rand Paul's statement indicates that he has made any departure whatsoever from being on board with [Alleged] President Obama's arms embargo with Israel. Rand Paul has been consistently silent, during this campaign, about his thoughts on the arms embargo and the silence is deafening in this latest statement, particularly since Klein is highlighting an incredibly minor point, relatively speaking, as a "clear departure" from his father.
If you look at all of the problems with Ron Paul's position on Israel and then consider that the only notable "departure" Rand Paul has from it is that he wouldn't condemn Israel for defending herself, and when you consider that Rand Paul has been making speeches on this for years for his father, well, you should not be at all impressed by this recent statement. Rather, you should be concerned that he is posturing to win votes.......and ineffectively so.
Bottom line? When Stormfront stops being giddy about Rand Paul, I'll know that Rand Paul has been clear in his support for Israel.
You have that right!
He says he wouldn't vote against Israel defending herself but would he vote for the U.S. to provide military support for that defense? I don't think so.
“Their pot stash is more important.....” Couldn’t agree more, your entire comment was spot-on! Pretty much sums up 90% of libertarian constituents.
No major departure from his dad?
which is why I usually have little respect for them. Rules-based isolationalists without a lick of common sense.
The last time SP sid anything about Rand was 7 Feb 2010
and the ad he is running comes from a few second comment from a general intervoew on FOX 7 Feb 2010.
Unlike comments, new ads and speeches for other candidates.
She likes his small government, “federalist ideas,” but when ya endorse, people assume you endorse everything about the endorsed candidate.
She stated she has disagreements with him.
Grayson who voted for Clinton doesn’t like Palin
so that took care of any endorsement for him
her exact comment on endorsement was ....While there are issues we disagree
Facts don’t matter. It’s always ‘perception.” As you can see by the blogs I linked, the voiced concerns are ‘real,’ despite Sarah’s undying support for Israel.
Many wern’t suporting Sarah in the first place.
the concerned voter routine.
When she endorsed Rand, he was talking Conservative
After endorsement, he is at the libertarian views.
Probably one good reason she hasn’t said another word since 7 Feb. 2010
Her endorsement of Rand Paul won’t come back to bite her. Sarah Palin is *diverse* in her endorsements. Rand Paul is just one of many
I’ll hold you to that when he starts running for president on the loon ticket every four years...lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.