Rand Paul's Libertarian Crack

sgberman.com ^ | 6/11/15 | Steve Berman

[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'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?'"

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.

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:

• Decriminalize controlled substance possession (“very small amounts”).
• Allow non-violent felons to vote.
• Provide for a stringent legal process and “clear and convincing evidence” for forfeiture of assets.
• Allow judges to depart from mandatory minimum sentences (essentially removing those minimums).
• Create a judicial process to seal adult non-violent criminal records.

I would support some of these, since on the surface they seem useful.  But would we want to allow Bernie Madoff, Richard Scrushy, Allen Stanford, George Ryan, Rod Blagojevich, et. al. to vote again?  Paul does.

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.”

“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 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.

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)

[simon says what]

1) Should each state get to decided whether or not to permit or not permit abortion? — NO, life begins at conception.

2) Do ALL women have the right to abortion? — NO, life begins at conception. In the case of the mother’s life being in danger... truly in danger; she has the right to self defense.

3) Should each state get to decide if same-sex “marriage” is allowed? — Government should not define marriage. Marriage is a contract between individuals.

4) Should America end the War on Terror? — YES, it is a farce. We continue intelligence gathering and intervene to prevent attacks. Wars, however, should be declared by Congress as outlined in the Constitution, and fought to the point of destruction and/or surrender of the enemy.

As far as limited v. small government — WE CURRENTLY HAVE NEITHER. I am for limited government. I will be more precise with the use of those adjectives. We meant the same thing.

[trisham]

You are not a conservative.

[simon says what]

Troll?

Yea, if you can’t discuss without labeling and denigrating, you are not a conservative.

[simon says what]

No less conservative than you.

[trisham]

You couldn’t be more wrong, but then you haven’t been here for eight years, correct?

[ansel12]

Why did you totally ignore post 40 and it’s complete rebuttal of your claims, which included Paul’s quote on “thousands of exceptions”, and which asked you to confirm that you think that “gay marriage” is a right?

You are definitely acting and posting like a liberal troll.

[simon says what]

And Paul was clear that the “thousands of exceptions” represented that thousands of women’s lives are threatened by a pregnancy every year. He did not mean there were thousands of reasons.

[ansel12]

And Paul was clear that the “thousands of exceptions” represented that thousands of women’s lives are threatened by a pregnancy every year.

You really are a liar.

Read the question.

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.

[simon says what]

I am neither. I am not liberal and I am not a troll. I have been a member of Free Republic since 2002. I am not a member of ANY progressive, liberal, democratic, or socialist organization.

I believe in limited government, the absolute god given rights of the individual, and that I don’t need to call someone a name because I disagree with them.

[ansel12]

And Paul was clear that the “thousands of exceptions” represented that thousands of women’s lives are threatened by a pregnancy every year.

You really are a liar.

Read the question.

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.

[ansel12]

Sorry, but it is obvious that you are a liberal, that is why you don’t mind the leftists electing your rino candidate.

You think that “gay marriage” is a right?

[simon says what]

Now I’m a liar?

You really can’t discuss issues using just your adult words and thoughts, can you? Just have to sink down to the name calling level.

Paul campaign press release after the interview:

By “thousands of exceptions,” Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com, Paul meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases – for example, ectopic pregnancies or others that directly threaten the mother’s life.

[ansel12]

You mean the attempt at recovery for Paul’s response when asked about rape and incest.

BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions.
PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.

---

“The thing is about abortion—and about a lot of things—is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you’re this or this or that, or you’re hard and fast (on) one thing or the other,” Paul told Elliott. “I’ve supported both bills with and without (exceptions), you know. In general, I am pro-life.”

So simon, you think that “gay marriage” is a right?

[ansel12]

Let’s just say that, if you are a conservative, then you are a master of disguise.

[simon says what]

I don’t mean an attempt to recover from anything. It is his stated position. If you would like to take one interview out of context from his stated position on both his campaign website and in other interviews, that’s on you.

I don’t believe any marriage is a right. Freedom of association is a right. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a contractual agreement, who am I or the government to stand in their way?

My personal definition of marriage as it would apply to my life and what I am referring to when I say marriage is: one man, one woman.

Answered your questions, responded to your posts.

Are you ok with the erosion of our individual rights and liberties by the past several administrations? Why are the issues you have raised more important to you than mass surveillance of citizens by the NSA or the continuing attempts to restrict our 1st and 2nd amendment rights?

[simon says what]

No let’s not just say. I have said... I AM A CONSERVATIVE. I am not disguising anything and I have answered questions as to what I believe. You have simply called me names.

[Responsibility2nd]

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?

 

This right here. This is you crossing the line. Spout all the pro-Paul nonsense you want. But when it comes to endorsing queer marriages - IBTZ.

[ansel12]

No, I quoted his position, and showed that he has revealed it in other interviews, you said something about damage repair from one of his campaign people.

Do you oppose gay marriage, and disagree with Paul on his abortion and gay marriage support?

How about his cutting the military, and his war against social conservatives?

It is very odd that in your 13 years here, this is the first time that anyone has ever come close to getting you to reveal anything about these all important conservative issues.

It’s odd that you have never displayed any real conservatism in 13 years, and still aren’t.

[trisham]

:)

[simon says what]

Odd, odd, odd... name calling, name calling, name calling.

I did not realize there was some minimum requirement for posts in order to actually have a viewpoint on an article about a candidate for President.

Do you actually ever state what you believe? Is there a reason you will not answer my questions?

It is a clear sign that you do not have a message when all you can do is attack the opposing messenger.