Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul 2016: His Role At CPAC Could Put Him On the Path, But Hurdles Remain
policymic ^ | January 22, 2013 | By Grant Ferowich

Posted on 01/22/2013 4:16:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), son of the recently-retired libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), was recently announced as a featured speaker for this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

CPAC is essentially a litmus test for the Republican Party; it provides a general sense of the party’s direction. Backed by tremendous Tea Party support, Rand Paul is eyeing a 2016 bid to take the reigns of the country, and he doesn’t care if you know it: "I am different than some in that I'm not going to deny that I'm interested," said Paul.

The GOP finds itself in an identity crisis. Among others attending CPAC are Sen. Marc Rubio (R-Fla.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). Throw in Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, and you have all the heavy hitters chomping at the bit for the 2016 GOP bid.

With disciplined libertarian Ron Paul retiring, there is some expectation that Rand Paul will succeed his father in spearheading libertarian causes. After Romney’s mystery campaign many await what a reinvigorated GOP will entail. Does Rand Paul’s rise represent anything transformative in the GOP?

Rand Paul is a rare breed: He is a self-described libertarian, but envisions a world where the government controls matters regarding basic women’s rights, even in cases of rape and incest. The libertarian affection for choice, freedom, and minimalist government gains an interesting meaning for Paul: “I think the answer really is that we need to somehow find our way back to God.” Despite the continued moral decay noticed by some after the Newtown tragedy, government imposition of religious morality hardly defines any libertarian worth his salt.

Rand Paul might be characterized by tea party sentiment, “Get the government out of my life!”

(Excerpt) Read more at policymic.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cpac; elections; paul; randpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 last
To: JohnPDuncan

We then no I could not support him..


51 posted on 01/22/2013 7:28:59 PM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Supporting the troops would be to bring them home from no-win conflicts so they’re not killed/maimed and left disabled and often homeless when they come back.

That would be really supporting the troops I think.

And why are there still bases in Germany, Korea and Japan? Waste of money right there providing other countries with a security guarantee which they should be paying for themselves not relying on the US taxpayer.


52 posted on 01/22/2013 7:30:46 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

America spends more on national defense than the next 15 countries combined.

You don’t think the Pentagon budget is not bloated?

You can’t be serious.

There is no reason why the Pentagon spending can not be reduced I believe it HAS to be reduced if there is ever to be a balanced budget and fiscal sanity.

That doesn’t mean America can’t have the most awesome military in the world, it must just have a more efficient military and do more with less and come from places where it doesn’t need to be like Germany.


53 posted on 01/22/2013 7:36:04 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan
Your arguments would make sense if we all lived in a world that you wish it to be but we do not.

We are at war, we were attacked first and the enemy is determined to destroy the United States and western civilization in general.

I realize you are like many Americans who cannot or will not believe this simple fact....but electing a Libertarian as POTUS who believes as you would only hasten our defeat

54 posted on 01/22/2013 7:39:43 PM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Admiral Mullin says the biggest national threat is the debt and deficit... not even an external enemy!

Why?

Because how can the US defend itself when it’s on its knee’s financially? Explain that to me?

The Pentagon spending must be cut for the sake of the budget and I bet you’d barely notice it if BOEING got a few less fat contracts for shiny new toys.


55 posted on 01/22/2013 7:40:11 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

You really think that the taliban can defeat AMERICA??

That they’re going to march on Washington?

Give me a break.

They’re not much of a threat at all.

Do they really scare you?


56 posted on 01/22/2013 7:43:07 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan
You are uninformed regarding the Defense of this country. I don't suffer fools ...so try to convince others I will not support a Libertarian for POTUS...end of story.
57 posted on 01/22/2013 7:49:15 PM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup; Jim Robinson; JohnPDuncan; montanajoe; Timber Rattler; humblegunner; ...
Chickensoup:

Anyone who is a Neville Chamberlain think alike IS a nutcase. Ron Paul was rightly judged guilty of being a nutcase.

OTOH, Rand Paul ought not be blamed for his father's insanities. He deserves the chance to be judged on his own track record.

It is not libertarianism per se which disqualifies Paul the Elder. It is his idea that a competent Pentagon need wield only three rowboats, a few blunderbusses and a supply of tri-cornered hats (preferably with beanie propellers on top) and then only for domestic political displays while letters of marque and reprisal will be sufficient to deal with any threats from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Al Qaeda, etc. I can accept the wisdom that we may be a bit overcommitted but Paul the Elder inspired no confidence whatsoever on foreign and military policy.

If Rand Paul (who so far seems quite distinguishable from his father) wants to close some foreign military bases (none that are strategically necessary) and be a bit slower on the trigger finger, fine. Ditto eliminating foreign aid to most of its recipients. Moving toward rediscovery of the Tenth Amendment (judiciously and S-L-O-W-L-Y, feeling our way along) likewise. Eliminating such cabinet level nuisances as Departments of Edumakashun, Energy, Interior, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and other nuisances such as BATF, Obozocare, Environmental Protection Agency, all Planned Barrenhood funding, [Here each reader may feel free to nominate a thousand or so other targets for elimination of federal $quander] should have high priority. It would be a nice touch to order take out from McDonald's or Burger King for all diplomatic meal functions and foreign embassy budgets and to devote the savings to effective embassy security to avoid such disgraceful fiascoes as Teheran 1979 and Benghazi 2012.

Rand Paul seems a LOT friendlier to Israel than his dad, a lot less inclined to radical pacifism and rank isolationism than his dad, a lot more effectively pro-life and pro-family than his dad, just as blessedly hostile to the Federal Reserve as his dad. He MAY be a candidate that many of us who opposed his dad may find worth supporting. Time will tell.

Speaking about freedom is good. Re-establishing it is even better.

As Chairman Mao used to say: Let a thousand flowers bloom! When 2014 has rolled around and shown us what each of the thousand flowers have to offer as POTUS candidates, as a movement, we should make the first cut and further tolerate no more than 3-5 candidates. We should strive to pick ONE thoroughly vetted candidate by September of 2015. We should also shut the press and lame stream media out of our selection process altogether. Allow them to cover the debates ONLY if they agree to broadcast the entire debate without ANY commentary during or spin room after. For debates, use the format that Jim DeMint perfected before the 2012 South Carolina primary. CONSERVATIVE questioners only. Deep and serious ISSUE questioning by people like Professor Robert George of Princeton (a noted pro-life scholar) and Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institute (history/foreign policy), Scott Rasmussen??? Let Jim DeMint moderate.

We need a candidate who (for starters):

1. Is absolutely and practically pro-life and pro-family (no fudgepacking posing as "marriage" is tolerable);

2. Is thoroughly committed to the Second Amendment and the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms;

3. Will eloquently articulate the necessity of eliminating entire federal government departments and agencies;

4. Will name to SCOTUS, Courts of Appeal and even District Courts ONLY thoroughly vetted pro-life and pro-family (see #1 above) nominees and also to each and every appointed position in the Justice Department;

5. Will get rid of Romney's new rules for GOP-E governance of the national party;

6. Will exorcise the post-Obozo fedgov eliminating all of the objectionable legal and regulatory detritus and demons Obozo leaves behind;

7. Will campaign as an inclusive, optimistic, bright and witty candidate (capable of self-deprecating humor as appropriate and effective), confident of America's future and in love with this country and her people;

8. Will make a point of campaigning in ghettoes and barrios as comfortably as at country clubs and corporate board rooms;

9. Is not a stiff or a verbal gaffe machine (the 47%, repealing the 17th Amendment, various tax gimmicks to comfort the comfortable, etc.)

With all that in mind, I find Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, interesting. Paul Ryan represents the district to my north and I regard him as an undependable suck-up to the House "GOP" leadership. Chris Christie is OUT! VP consideration should be given to Ken Cuccinelli, Susan Martinez, Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Floyd Flake, and others like them.

Our final ticket should credibly promise to return this country to ALL of its people and to de-emphasize and avoid slobbering all over corrupt Wall Street special interests.

58 posted on 01/22/2013 9:46:21 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Well said. I agree.


59 posted on 01/22/2013 10:19:15 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe
You are uninformed regarding the Defense of this country.

No, actually you are. There is tremendous waste in the DoD, and it's budget could easily be cut by half without having any impact on this country's combat power. Have you ever been to the Pentagon or inside a fixed base headquarters (like CENTCOM's in Tampa)? They are lavish beyond belief, with millions of $$$ spent on such thing as wood paneling, enormous conference tables, leather backed seats, plasma televisions, fancy expensive artwork, and late model motor pools. We're not talking about Private Joe's barracks and PXs (even though they are becoming much nicer), but the ostentatious perks that the senior brass is currently providing for itself at taxpayer expense.

And don't get me started on the golf courses, recreation centers, and water parks that are being built. And not to mention all the failed military hardware contracts out there, like the F-35 fiasco.

60 posted on 01/23/2013 2:32:04 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
It would be a nice touch to order take out from McDonald's or Burger King for all diplomatic meal functions

I nominate Chick-Fil-A over McDonald's and Burger King. If we MUST compromise, go with Wendy's (adoption is main charity).
61 posted on 01/23/2013 3:46:04 AM PST by Dr. Sivana ("C'est la vie" say the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell. -- Chuck Berry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
I'll ask you pal have you been to the Middle East, Southeast Asia, South America and if so did you get out of the “lavish” US bases and into the field where the various branches of Al Qaeda operate and are becoming stronger by the year.

The force structure can be modified and mission assignments changed for more efficiency no doubt, but claiming the defense budget can be cut in half by doing away with the lavishness in the existing budget is just silly. The type of silliness that I predict will prevent most conservatives from voting for a Libertarian.

If Rand is a Conservative he deserves consideration but if he is a disciple of his father, and the fact that many of the folks defending him appear to subscribe to the beliefs of his father then I wont and cant support him....

62 posted on 01/23/2013 3:47:19 AM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe
I'll ask you pal have you been to the Middle East, Southeast Asia, South America and if so did you get out of the “lavish” US bases and into the field where the various branches of Al Qaeda operate and are becoming stronger by the year.

The answer is YES, I've seen it all, so don't even go there.

...but claiming the defense budget can be cut in half by doing away with the lavishness in the existing budget is just silly.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

If Rand is a Conservative he deserves consideration but if he is a disciple of his father, and the fact that many of the folks defending him appear to subscribe to the beliefs of his father then I wont and cant support him....

Good luck with Christie or Jeb then.

63 posted on 01/23/2013 5:16:49 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Good luck with your libertarian loon...


64 posted on 01/23/2013 5:23:39 AM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
I would add that anyone claiming the defense budget can be cut in half is living in a fantasy world no matter how well intentioned or world wise or conservative they may consider themselves.

I would never trust the fate of the nation to those so deluded that they see any possibility that the DOD budget can be cut in half..that's flat out dip sh*t crazy...

65 posted on 01/23/2013 5:58:38 AM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Anyone who is a Neville Chamberlain think alike IS a nutcase. Ron Paul was rightly judged guilty of being a nutcase.

OTOH, Rand Paul ought not be blamed for his father’s insanities. He deserves the chance to be judged on his own track record.

It is not libertarianism per se which disqualifies Paul the Elder. It is his idea that a competent Pentagon need wield only three rowboats, a few blunderbusses and a supply of tri-cornered hats (preferably with beanie propellers on top) and then only for domestic political displays while letters of marque and reprisal will be sufficient to deal with any threats from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Al Qaeda, etc. I can accept the wisdom that we may be a bit overcommitted but Paul the Elder inspired no confidence whatsoever on foreign and military policy.
__________________________________

You seriously misrepresent libertarian military philosophy, and need to relook at it. A policy that says strong defense and staying out of other people’s business is a wise policy IMHO.

Having Chomskey be totally correct in his predictions about US overseas adventures engagements twenty years later is an indictment of our present policies of adventurism and world cop status. No I do not want our country to become a UN baby, as a matter of fact the faster we are out of the UN and the UN is out of the States the more I will celebrate.

However, sending our troops overseas to die for issues that apparently are mostly related to oil and propping up dictatorships of the most unseemly kind is not what your minimizing “a bit overcommited” implies.

I disagree with your perspective that the next candidate needs to be strongly politcally prolife. We do not live in a country that will make that a reality on a national basis, but by bringing the issue back to a very libertarian state’s rights issue, it very will could become a reality. As far as homosexual and lesbian marriage, this is a hot button issue that isnt worth its drama or damage. Marriage IMHO should be relegated to the sphere of religion and not to government.

I have been a conservative for a very long time. And I was a leftist before that so I have had the good fortune of seeing issues from both sides. I can say without reservation that there is no room in the current two party system for small government, large defense, border protection, and financial continence. Thus I am very comfortable in being a conservative within a libertarian structure.


66 posted on 01/23/2013 6:04:32 AM PST by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Do you even know how big the defense budget is, or how many bases we have throughout the world, many of them obsolete or otherwise useless, except to drive host nations’ local economies?


67 posted on 01/23/2013 6:05:50 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
The 2011 DOD budget that is on the books was about $665 billion. You are talking about a few hundred million in “lavish” items that could be cut. I don't take you seriously

We will have to just disagree because I see you are a person who is simply out of touch with reality as it concerns the DOD...and the threats posed by radical Islam. You claim you have been there done that but I have a hard time comprehending that as you seem to just be parroting Ron Paul's lunacy

68 posted on 01/23/2013 6:18:42 AM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe
We will have to just disagree because I see you are a person who is simply out of touch with reality as it concerns the DOD...

No, I work with DoD every day and see all the gratuitous waste with my own eyes. Do you? Or are you simply an arm chair budget warrior, armed only with the latest editions of Jane's Compendium and Defense Weekly?

69 posted on 01/23/2013 6:40:05 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

I dont suffer fools...


70 posted on 01/23/2013 6:44:31 AM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe
I dont suffer fools...

Apparently you don't have to since all you have to do is look in the mirror.

71 posted on 01/23/2013 7:06:20 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

KEY, as you say, is a drop dead date for conservatives to throw their own pick overboard and come together behind ONE candidate, to save what is left of the Republic. Looking back, I regret underestimating MONEY, the killer of being on financial life support and in no condition to even think of running a campaign.

The Tea Party found its glue on looming fiscal collapse, bailouts and the sure appearance of nationalizing this and that, at will. THAT issue remains a winner.

Rand Paul is at the helm on matters of fiscal reorganization.
He is no Ron Paul, so far, on much of anything else, and no one accuses him of being a clone of the socialist Mitt Romney.

I don’t hear Rand P speaking much on the scourge of our nation— abortion, or on legislating for gay marriage and against all things that support the structure of, and help salvage, the American family.

Christians are coming under increasing attack in their own land. Surely, Rand Paul recognizes the urgency of turning it back, as well as saving the Constitution, written by Christians.

Rand has returned from Israel and made no secret that the US is funding their enemies and ours. Israel must know by now, and appreciate, that he wants to cut some of the funding to Israel and replace it with trade? I forget. Help me, here.

The Libertarian machine was rising with a phenominal measure of rowdiness, suitable for the times, and force against the GOP. It was far more than we conservatives mustered. Harness that and we have a resistance.

Last, your number 8, is a must. No answer to America for Action is a sure defeat for the Republic.


72 posted on 01/23/2013 8:41:03 AM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan

That quote from Reagan goes back to 1975. Back before Libertarians were RINO scum as they are now.

It’s was obvious that Reagan was not a lib and would be appalled at the crap they endorse these days.


73 posted on 01/23/2013 12:48:12 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
I'm not condemning him, I'm just saying let's wait and see.

That's all I'm saying, too. At this point, unlike during the primaries, we have the "luxury" of scrutinizing likely candidates. We have several years to watch them.

I like a lot of what Rand says, but I don't have to make up my mind just yet. I'll probably be defending him on here in the coming months. A lot of FReepers want to dismiss him simply because of his Dad without actually considering what he says.

I think that's a mistake.

74 posted on 01/23/2013 3:59:52 PM PST by BfloGuy (Money, like chocolate on a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: marron

Thank you for your kind words! May God bless you and yours!


75 posted on 01/23/2013 10:12:25 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK; Jim Robinson; montanajoe; Timber Rattler; Chickensoup; marron; Dr. Sivana
RitaOK:

Thank you for your kind words.

I believe that Rand Paul is sound on abortion. On that issue, the real question is HOW Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. SCOTUS might take the easy path and return the question to the states respectively which would restore the LEGAL status quo ante by again ALLOWING the states to individually prohibit abortion. Fifteen or twenty states would then act promptly to outlaw most (realistically) abortions but that obviously does not restore the CIVILIZATIONAL status quo ante circa 1972. The pro-life cause has sustained the damage of Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton (think twin Pearl Harbors) and their evil spawn of subsequent decisions and also there have been about 55 million surgical abortions and therefore many millions of women (and all too often the men who fathered their slaughtered babies) who have an emotional investment in the status quo of the present. Sending the matter back to the states can be easily justified under the Tenth Amendment. Argument: Neither Congress nor the executive nor the federal courts are specifically empowered by the Constitution to legalize or prohibit or regulate abortion and therefore it is a matter for the states and the people respectively. Herod Blackmun is dead. Sandra Day O'Connor is retired. Breyer is not a warrior for abortion although he may favor it being legal and probably does not want to keep refighting the war. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito appear to be rock solid. Maybe Kennedy would be inclined to kick it back to the states.

Far better would be a personhood decision recognizing the unborn as persons from conception and protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will NEVER vote for personhood. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito MIGHT vote for personhood. Kennedy may decide that issue. After 2016, wit the right POTUS, Breyer may retire and Ginzberg may be dead (at least one bout of uterine cancer already and she is now a widow. It would not be our first death watch over SCOTUS in 40 years of this barbarism.

On other issues, I tend to agree with your post. I suspect that Rand Paul would opt for a Tenth Amendment approach to the matter of "gay""marriage" but might well also allow the states to ignore one another and rely on the Tenth Amendment as a later enactment to trump the "full faith and credit" clause of the original constitution.

That would allow Rand Paul the room to really open up on the fiscal issues, the deficit, taxes, downsizing the rampaging Leviathan that the fedgov has become, defunding much of the insanity, slashing away wholesale at regulations. Done well, his first thousand days might exceed those of Ronaldus Maximus. Doing it well means really connecting with constituencies not normally Republican: the libertarian young, foreign and military skeptics (not too rigidly and hopefully backed by old Reagan hands like Frank Gaffney), Blacks, Latinos (both groups on social conservatism and an aggressive policy to topple the status quo welfare state in favor of an opportunity society that includes the ambitious and honorable poor, industrial restoration, populist and anti-elitist tone overall with plenty of well-chosen but aggressive rhetoric. Putting the hay down where we goats can get it, as George Wallace used to say.

Rand Paul's attack on Hillary and her tired and dishonest, victim card playing, insults to human intelligence on Benghazi and her manifest and humiliating failures and Obozos, was magnificent, and his tone was just about perfect and what the public is looking for. Her answers were as bad as her failures to protect the embassy personnel. Bravissimo! Senator Paul.

I have no idea of what America for Action may be. I almost hesitate to ask but tell me anyhow! Is this the Obozo campaign organization preserved and funded (tax exempt no less) to push public policy? If not, what is it?

So far, it looks like he may be able to unite libertarians who followed his father, conservatives who resisted his father and many other constituencies. I don't know what his solution for Israel may be. I do believe that he would refuse all of the following: to attempt to push Israel around, to try to force a peace agreement down Israel's throat, to care at all what the anti-American poobahs of the United Nations may want, to prohibit Israeli purchases of American weapons systems with Israel's own money or have a civilized lunch with Israeli Prime Ministers who wish to visit. He also would probably not object to Israel acting on its own behalf to stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons which is a very good side of non-interventionist policy. I am an interventionist but I believe that Senator Paul can probably be trusted unlike his father.

Resistance! God bless you and yours!

76 posted on 01/23/2013 11:07:39 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

Absolutely! On each and every word.


77 posted on 01/23/2013 11:12:33 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
A sensible US Government would have stripped Chomsky of the citizenship he obviously despises in our country which he obviously despises, deported Chomsky or put him before a firing squad as the despicable leftist treasonweasel that he is.

YOU seriously misunderstand the capacity of many libertarians to care about any morals not directly bound to their individual financial ambitions. Fortress America isolationism is a verrrrry dead issue. See Chamberlain, Neville. See also the shameful American war resisters of the pre-Pearl Harbor years. That the America Firsters have a handful of eccentric supporters in the 21st century is a testament to the gullibility of a tiny slice of our population. Once Pearl Harbor had been bombed, America First folded their tents at a 12/8/41 press conference in Chicago featuring John Flynn (Executive Director of America First and Editor of the New Haven Register), Colonel McCormack, Charles Lindbergh and the rest of the leadership. Robert A. Taft became a supporter of the war. He later advocated abandonment of Europe which had rejected its chance for freedom and urged support for nations in the Third World and the Pacific Rim who had not had or rejected freedom. Ron Paul was no Robert A. Taft. His son Rand appears to be a far wiser man. Give us who were enemies of Ron Paul enough room to give you SOME of what you want by supporting Rand Paul. No guarantees but many of us intent to give him a fair hearing in the hope that he avoids the heresies of his father.

BTW, this conservative has verrrry little appetite for boots on the ground. We have technology. Death from the sky and mass destruction of infrastructure from the sky is a better route. It also allows us to avoid a lot of civilian casualties. For surgical matters, the drones do a very nice job. I remember an Islamolunatic cleric who was confined to a wheelchair but was whipping up street trash to attack Israelis being taken out by a drone. The attack was so surgical that his body was disintegrated except for his relatively unmarked head which was sitting on the undamaged seat of the wheel chair. How DO they do that? That was quite impressive. My compliments to Bibi Netanyahu! May we be governed by someone of his steel spine after Obozo is finished.

If God wanted American troops everywhere on the ground, why did He provide a world in which the US Navy has the missiles to reduce any enemy to radioactive ashes without American service casualties? IEDs don't work so well under the sea or in the air.

Small domestic government, large defense and financial continence. Three out of four ain't bad. Quit while you are ahead.

Otherwise form a Kumbaya party with Noam Chomsky, a baby-killing, devil may care libertarian party that supports the posturing of perversion as "marriage," and maybe favors recreational drug legalization and absolutely avoids anything smacking of religious conviction while worshiping only the almighty dollar.... Oh wait! The Libertarian Party already exists and beckons the bitter enders and offers all that and more! Sayonara, Mr. Galt, Mr. D'Anconia, Mr. Danneskold, and Ms. Rand!

You and I also disagree on bordermania. Seal the border. Fine first step only. Then we must welcome the generally law abiding (except for bordermania) Hispanics who simply want to be part of our country (amazing that anyone would want to be Americans after eight years of Clinton and four years and counting of Obozo). Actively respect them and learn about them, get to know them and, yes, seek their votes when they have become actual citizens. Find the remnant of responsibility in the black community and develop programming that will free their kids from P.S. 666 and give them a real and moral education in the private sector and give hope and results to their parents in exchange for their earnest effort to earn and fully participate in the fruits of the American Dream as private sector workers.

Now, the real policy differences that matter. We actual conservatives have not fought Roe vs. Wade for forty years to settle for such weak tea as a Tenth Amendment solution to Roe vs. Wade other than as a very unsatisfactory temporary expedient. Eventually, only a personhood policy will suffice. If necessary, considering the vast number of human lives already sliced, diced and hamburgerized and the potential number yet to be butchered, SCOTUS must do personhood. Let the babykillers have a daily collective nervous breakdown, be wildly indignant about nearly everything (what else is new???), leave the country with babs Streisand and George Clooney and Lady GaGa. When we have SCOTUS, then the left should be treated as tenderly as the babies have been treated for forty years.

As to marriage, America is not the Stonewall Bar nor La Cage Aux Folles writ large. We are not Canada where daily butt-smooching of the lavender left is becoming mandatory.

Religious freedom (from funding abortion and contraception via Obozocare) is also non-negotiable. It is right there in the very First Amendment.

If the country goes broke because the GOP-E and the libertarians want to join the leftist enemies in Margaret Sanger's Last Stand, so be it. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way but the little libertarian tail will NOT be allowed to wag the big conservative dog.

78 posted on 01/24/2013 12:10:55 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: GRRRRR

For 2016 I’d like to see a ticket of Paul Ryan/Rand Paul or Rubio/Palin...


79 posted on 01/24/2013 9:18:18 AM PST by ExCTCitizen (More Republicans stayed home then the margin of victory of O's Win...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ExCTCitizen

Paul/Cruz 2016...not interested in Rubio at all.


80 posted on 01/24/2013 9:24:47 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

Dream Ticket for 2016?

A. West / S. Palin...


81 posted on 01/24/2013 10:45:28 AM PST by GRRRRR (He'll NEVER be my President, FUBO! Treason is the Reason! Impeach the Kenyan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

I occasionally like to say that leaders lead and fighters fight.

During the first year of O’s regime, when the GOP politicians were so completely demoralized that they wanted only to prove to O how bipartisan they could be, the number of politicals who were prepared to fight back could be counted on one hand. They were people like Bachmann, DeMint, Palin (though she was out of office), and a few talking heads in the media. Romney was not among them as I remember pointing out again and again. He was busy laying low and preparing his position papers for his eventual campaign.

Though from a practical point of view his behavior made sense, it also meant that he was AWOL during the fight of the century as O steamrolled his way through. Though I eventually voted for him, I pointed out repeatedly that such a man was neither leader nor fighter, or else he would be leading and fighting.

Now that O is secure for another 4 years, he is going to be more confident than ever in his ability to steamroll his opponents. The GOP is looking for a way to surrender on just about everything. This is the moment for a leader to emerge, and the only one I see standing up is Rand. He’s not perfect, but he fights.

So he has my attention. Palin is still out there doing what she does best, and there are a couple of others who are also fearless. Our next president should be chosen from among our natural leaders and fighters. We should not simply accept some guy who thinks its his turn. Romney had no problem taking down his GOP rivals but he did not know how to deal with O and his communists. Rand, like Palin, seems to be fearless. We’ve got a long way to go to 2016, but we should be lining up behind our fighters.

At some point Rand is going to get the Palin treatment, the Bork and Judge Thomas treatment, and many of us will want to run for the doors. We have to expect it and be prepared to deal with it.


82 posted on 01/24/2013 11:45:46 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: marron
Great post!

Someone on another thread described Sarah Palin as our "flame of the North." That she is and we ought to defend her and fight for her at every opportunity. She is magnificent.

I could never stand Ron Paul but Rand Paul is looking better and better. He fileted Hillary and it is about time someone did. I won't blame him for his father and I will give him the benefit of the doubt unless and until he should prove unworthy as I hope he will not. You are right. He fights. Sarah Palin also fights and a few others do as well.

God bless you and yours!

83 posted on 01/24/2013 10:53:54 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson