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 isn’t 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). It’s beyond the flat-tax, abolish the IRS, away with the wacko environmentalists polluting the EPA points that Sen. Ted Cruz espouses.
It’s so addicting that lunatics and tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracists from both ends of the spectrum are attracted to it.
It’s 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 Paul’s 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 thought—militant, radical Islamists hate us because of us, not because they have a maniacal desire to rule the world and usher in the Twelfth Imam’s 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 Paul’s “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 don’t want Republicans to own them.
On “social justice” (with scare-quotes, mind you), Paul has jumped the shark. Paul’s website details an alphabet soup of legislation he’d 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 Riker’s Island for three years—much of it in solitary—awaiting 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 O’Donnell. His Baltimore speech was covered by (of all media outlets, why?) Al Jazeera America.
“I can tell you I didn’t 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 else’s shoes, I think we shouldn’t say that we can’t understand the anger of people.”The America that Paul sees is not a Federal Republic following Constitutional principles. He really doesn’t 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 it’s all racism? No,” Paul said. “What I am telling you is that white kids don’t 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 Paul’s 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)
I give up, what are you raging about?
I respect your willingness to support the site (I likewise do so, monthly) and join in the conversations (as I do). Just that your phrase about expecting FR folks to get angry struck me as sort of "asking for somebody to oblige" which is often the start of a flamewar or even a zot.
But from the looks of things on the thread, it's fine. FReeper 'simon says what' seems to be the only one taking heat. ;-)
Have a great day!
Oh good- Maybe enough of them vote for him to ensure victory.
Awesome! - like Reagan democrats!
Oh good- Maybe enough of them vote for him to ensure victory.
Awesome! - like Reagan democrats!
Oh good- Maybe enough of them vote for him to ensure victory.
Awesome! - like Reagan democrats!
Finally. A path to get to 51% of the vote or even more.
Well, are you going to tell us what in the heck you are raving about or not?
ansel12,
Actually, no; I am not pushing liberalism. And no, I didn’t confuse the site with DU. And what does it have to do with anything that I’ve posted once since 2007?
I am a Freeper, longer than you. I feel no need to denigrate you or your opinions. For some reason, you insist on dismissing me with hyperbole, straw man arguments, and some sort of seniority / quantity of posts obsession.
Individual rights are the foundation of our country. They have been eroded dramatically by the last several administrations. I believe the number one issue of the upcoming Presidential campaign is the reversal of government intrusion into our lives and stopping the erosion of individual god given rights as outlined in the US Constitution. Our government is too big and too powerful. We must dramatically reduce its size or we will suffer the tyrannical consequences. That is a CONSERVATIVE value.
Rand Paul is anti-military, pro-choice, is OK with gay marriage, wants the GOP to move left on social issues, and “evolve” into being more liberal.
Or as you say, with your sleeper account that lay dormant for almost 8 years, and was barely used before that, if the leftists elect him, what does it matter, he represents YOUR views.
I don’t see a conservative in your posts, or your posting history.
The Paultards will never admit that what they support is actually libertine anarchy with a pre-Renaissance economy. The old Mad Max movies (and other post-apocalypse movies) give a pretty good idea of what America would look like if Paultard policies were adopted.
ansel12,
Again, not one actual opinion of what you support or believe. You label me a “sleeper account”, assert the opposite of Rand Paul’s views on the military, twist his viewpoints on other issues, and then ignore the viewpoint he represents most for ALL OF US which is individual rights. OUR GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG AND I HAVE NOT SEEN YOU SAY ONE THING IN REFERENCE TO IT. Does this mean you are ok with the size, scope, and reach of our government? You are simply attacking the messenger whether it be me, Rand Paul, or someone else. Is that all you actually have to say about the individual liberties and rights of our citizens going away? Are you not concerned that we are becoming a totalitarian state right before our eyes? I know, I know, I know... call me a name, twist some words, and point out I ONLY have a few hundred posts on this forum. Exhibit some more conservative values to us all.
Not a troll, not a sleeper, and this is my only account. I am a small government, liberty loving, individual rights supporting, conservative.
Rand Paul wants to reduce our already too small, and stressed military, and reduce their ability to fight by reducing their weapons and research.
Rand Paul believes in "thousands of exception" in abortion, and describes himself only as "in general" being pro-life, he also opposed DOMA, and rejects our defense of marriage as “I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”
So then, why EXACTLY did you stop posting for eight years? Were you the victim of the "draconian" drug laws that Paul promises to do away with?
I am a small government, liberty loving, individual rights supporting, conservative.
For starters, conservatism has NEVER been about "small government." We believe in LIMITED government, there's a huge difference.
Now, to you "love" of liberty and individual rights, will you answer YES or NO to the following questions:
1. Should each state get to decided whether or not to permit or not permit abortion? YES or NO
2. Do ALL women have the right to abortion? YES or NO
3. Should each state get to decide if same-sex "marriage" is allowed? YES or NO
4. Should America end the War on Terror? YES or NO
Please tell us what SPECIFIC beliefs you have that you regard as conservative.
This should be interesting.
If you look at his almost none existent posting history of 13 years, you notice that there is nothing in them about politics or conservatism, except for comments on some money issues.
Then he posts this today, after an 8 year vacation from FR, and in behalf of Rand Paul "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?"
A 10% reduction in military spending does not make him anti-military. We have the world’s largest military budget by several orders of magnitude. He is anti-deficit spending.
He does not believe in “thousands of exceptions” for abortion. Hyperbole much? He believes life begins at conception and he will stop government funding for all abortion organizations.
Gay marriage. So because he believes that you should lead your life, I should lead my life, and others should lead their lives, all as we see fit; you prefer other candidates that support routine government violations of our rights?
Yes troll, reducing our already too small military by a tenth, and reducing their weapons procurement, and their new weapons research, is anti-military, a libertarian position that I know that you hold.
Thousands? My hyperbole? My misquote?
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?
PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions.
You believe that “gay marriage” is a right?
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.