Skip to comments.Rand Paul's Libertarian Crack
Posted on 06/11/2015 6:18:40 AM PDT by lifeofgrace
Rand Paul sells libertarian crack.
The Kentucky Senator deals in a designer drug of anarchism so powerful that it flows equally well in the ruby red arteries of liberty-leaning Republicans, as well as the deep blue veins of liberal Democrats.
This drug isnt your run-of-the-mill small government chatter that all the Republican candidates parrot (save Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee, who are perfectly fine with trying to leash Leviathan). Its beyond the flat-tax, abolish the IRS, away with the wacko environmentalists polluting the EPA points that Sen. Ted Cruz espouses.
Its so addicting that lunatics and tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracists from both ends of the spectrum are attracted to it.
Its the drug of social justice through mob rule.
The only difference between the liberal brand of this justice is that Democrats prefer their mob rule to be executed by Leviathan, while Pauls drug demands that government self-annihilate and let the libertines rave.
On foreign policy, Paul pitches strikes straight from the mound into the waiting maw of liberal thoughtmilitant, radical Islamists hate us because of us, not because they have a maniacal desire to rule the world and usher in the Twelfth Imams Caliphate.
You know the drug works when The Huffington Post publishes the headline Rand Paul is Right: Republican Neocons Created ISIS.
Undeterred by their predictable multi-trillion dollar debacle in Iraq, Sen. Rand Paul's neocon detractors idiotically championed war against Libya's secular Muammar Gaddafi after he had abandoned WMD and support for international terrorism. The neocons supported Islamic radicals in the overthrow and murder Gaddafi, which was followed by the plunder of his vast conventional arsenal by Islamic radicals. A power vacuum predictably followed, which ISIS exploited to gain a menacing toehold in Libya.The Washington Post reported on Pauls Meet the Press interview on May 17.
Paul, who is running for president, was asked whether his position on Iraq puts him at odds with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a White House rival who has said that "the world is a better place because Saddam Hussein doesn't run Iraq."Paul would not have gone into Iraq, or Libya, or anywhere. His top priority was ending NSA spying and killing the Patriot Act, which he did rather deftly. The typical Libertarian (capital L) position is to build Fortress America, based on every patriot owning as many firearms as possible, and waiting for the barbarous hordes to arrive on our shores, so we can properly greet them using those weapons.
Paul's response: "I don't think that's exactly how I put it."
He continued: "We are more at risk for attack from people who are training, organizing and fighting in Iraq than we were before." Paul called the Islamic State militant group, which controls many areas in Iraq and Syria, "more of an aberration than even Hussein was."
In particular, questions about Iraq have tripped up Jeb Bush, a likely presidential contender. He gave different answers last week to the question of whether the invasion ordered by his brother was justified given that we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Bush eventually stated that he would not have gone into Iraq. Paul said Democratic presidential front-runner and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton should face similar scrutiny.
"They should ask her, 'Was it a good idea to invade Libya? Did that make us less safe? Did it make it more chaotic?," said Paul, adding, "I think the war in Iraq is a good question and still a current question, but so is the question of, 'Should we have gone into Libya?'"
This non-interference strategy appeals to the inner-libertarians in both parties. You see, Democrats like to own firearms too. They just dont want Republicans to own them.
On social justice (with scare-quotes, mind you), Paul has jumped the shark. Pauls website details an alphabet soup of legislation hed like to see passed: REDEEM, RESET, FAIR, and others without acronyms. What Paul would do, in a nutshell, is:
Would we want the whole country to go the way of Denver and Seattle? Paul does.
Now, from Baltimore, Paul made his best drug pitch Tuesday in a speech to the Baltimore County GOP. He spoke about Kelief Browder, the boy who was confined at Rikers Island for three yearsmuch of it in solitaryawaiting a trial that never happened. Browder committed suicide Saturday after a long battle with depression.
Paul has been using Browder as an example of a failed justice system for several years, along with Jay Z and Rosie ODonnell. His Baltimore speech was covered by (of all media outlets, why?) Al Jazeera America.
I can tell you I didnt grow up poor, I grew up middle class or upper middle class and this is me learning about how other people have to deal with life, Paul said. This young man, 16 years old imagine how his classmates feel about American justice. Imagine how his parents feel. So the thing is until you walk in someone elses shoes, I think we shouldnt say that we cant understand the anger of people.The America that Paul sees is not a Federal Republic following Constitutional principles. He really doesnt see the same America that Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio see. He sees the America that liberals see: unfair, burdened by racial injustice, and a corrupt system.
Am I saying they did nothing wrong and its all racism? No, Paul said. What I am telling you is that white kids dont get the same justice.
The libertarian crack drug Paul is dealing seeks to dismantle laws and government, and allow rogue prosecutors like Marilyn Mosby to rule by mob justice, and allow liberals in Washington and Colorado to have their way, all in the name of small government. The centralized Leviathan of big government that white old men of both parties favor is Pauls enemy, and his allies are anyone who stands with him in his Quixotic war against the fetters of government, including radical leftists and the occupy movement.
Republicans who value the rule of law, the principles of Federalism, and the concept of an America guided by a morality based on absolute knowledge of right and wrong, should be careful of the drug Paul is selling. It might be appealing, and even addictive, but ultimately, it leaves the addict in the same place liberals would take us: mob rule.
(crossposted from RedState.com)
Its just does.
Of course it does.
Content aside, regardless of what you're saying, whether you're right or wrong or otherwise, that's the very definition of trolling. Intentionally provoking a rise out of this crew is like checking your gasoline tank with a match. Best of luck with that. :-)
I can partially see and understand your apprehension in regards to explosive responses, lifeofgrace. Let me ask you this in all seriousness though... So what? So what that he attracts radical leftists? And what I mean is, if it helps the most libertarian candidate running for president with a legitimate chance of winning, why does it matter who elects him? He is running on principles. Principles that allow conservatives to live freely in a conservative way. Our government is far too large and the reason we fear the radical left is because of the size of the government we have grown. It is not about taming the beast by winning the election, it is about shrinking it so that when the enemies of our individual liberties tame the beast, we smile at their new family pet. We need to reduce government until it is no longer the most powerful entity in our society. Anybody that wants to vote for that; welcome aboard!
Nevertheless the post is filled with unsupported assertions which display the author’s biases without providing any evidence that they are an accurate reflection of Paul’s policy positions. .
In other words : pure opinion.
Rand Paul’s brand of libertarianism really isn’t.
He talks about the 10th amendment and the powers of the state then turns around and talks about felons voting on a national stage. The states themselves have long held the power to make that decision. He bases his stance on the false premise that there are millions of blacks in prison for minor drug offenses due to racist laws.
Allow non-violent felons to vote. Agree, after the sentence has been served and after a waiting period.
Provide for a stringent legal process and clear and convincing evidence for forfeiture of assets. Agree completely, I would abolish forfeiture absent proof that the asset in question was received as the proceeds of a crime for which a conviction was achieved.
Allow judges to depart from mandatory minimum sentences (essentially removing those minimums).Agree completely
Create a judicial process to seal adult non-violent criminal records.Not sure I like this, need to look into the pros and cons (no pun intended)).
It appears that I agree with some of his positions and not others. Just like Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Perry, Fiorina, Santorum, Bush, Graham, Carson, Jindal, and Huckabee, all to a greater or lesser extent.
It helps shrink gov’t and spread liberty.
Completely agree with you on the size and corruption with regards to the federal government. One of the aspects I find most corrupt since WWII is the corrosion of the process our Founding Fathers put in place for making war. I think many of our foreign policy issues would not be issues today if we had stuck with the Declaration of War process.
I’m not saying there is not some naivety to Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions. Far from it. I am saying, however, that it has been far more naive to trade away our individual rights as we have as a nation over the last several administrations. I am no longer willing to use the foreign policy / terrorism threat reason as an excuse to not make our individual liberties and freedoms at home the number one priority of this election. What good is fighting to defend freedom in foreign lands if we are just going to give it all away right here at home?
Our current foreign policy is the same as any true libertarian; Isolationism. Isolationism eventually will consume us into the sphere of the most aggressive foreign power.
Hat tip to SunkenCiv for compiling this list.
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypts Generals: How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypts military even as Cairos security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by anti-government activists is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
Rand Paul On Shutdown: Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb IdeaI said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that its a conundrum. Heres the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you cant give the president a blank check. We just cant keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I cant vote for that. But the conundrum is if I dont we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we dont always all agree on every issue ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... Were going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party, Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Pauls immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration. Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution. Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation. Lets start that conversation by acknowledging we arent going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you... This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society. Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration. ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but hes not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Don’t forget that Rand Paul has made multiple appearances on the Alex Jones show and is aligned with Code Pink activist Adam Kokesh http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/23/dear-sarah-palin-its-time-to-re-think-that-rand-paul-anti-israel-pro-kokesh-endorsement/ - as well as this scandal with Kentucky Right to Life : http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/24/rand-paul-caught-lying-about-pro-life-survey/ Pasted from
Well ... duh! If you go far enough out to the extreme of the spectrum (think of a rainbow) ... you actually reach the other extreme.
You are one confused puppy, you think that leftists electing the president of the United States that they want, is what is good for conservatives.
You are on the wrong site.
I second that!
Oh, and WELCOME to freerepublic.
It’s not really left or right.
It’s the government vs the individual. The federal government (in the US) was supposed to be the force that protects individual rights. Now government is only concerned with self preservation and the rapacious oppression of the people.
Recreational drug use is mostly counterproductive and harmful to the individual. That being said, the federal government’s approach to enforcement is tyrannical and more harmful to society than the consequences of widespread drug use. The federal “cure” is much worse than the disease. I don’t see the drug problem getting any better with the world’s highest per capita prison rate. I don’t see the DEA and the FBI doing anything positive in this area. I don’t think that the disgusting and shameful police state is worth it. Why can’t states decide and keep the Feds out of it? We will get 50 different approaches to the problem; some will be good and others not so good, but people will be able to decide, not bureaucratic tyrants.
We need accountable decentralized government more than ever. I don’t think that any conscious citizen can trust the Feds to do almost anything right at this point.
ansell2, “Welcome to Free Republic?” I’ve been here three years longer than you. I am neither a confused puppy nor on the wrong site. I feel Free Republic is the perfect site to discuss the conservative issue of small government. I see no reason to categorize you or define what you should or should not post. I believe we learn by discussing issues with each other, not from demonizing or dismissing each other.
Actually you are pushing liberalism.
“”So what that he attracts radical leftists? And what I mean is, if it helps the most libertarian candidate running for president with a legitimate chance of winning, why does it matter who elects him? “”
As far as welcoming you to FR, since you have something of a sleeper account, for instance one post since 2007, until today, I thought that you may have confused us with DU.
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.