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)
Ted Cruz supports TPA, TPP, the Freedom act, Rand Paul doesn’t. Rand may be an immigration squish, but so is Cruz with his h1b1 stance. Why again should conservatives be voting for Cruz?
I certainly don’t consider hyperbolic extrapolation of constitutional ideas into pro -drugs, pro -crime positions as fact. Paul takes some positions that could be exploited. Not the same thing as saying he intends to exploit them.
Don’t ignore the post.
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.
Because Paul has a mouthful of Sharpton.
These are the same things you have posted in your other posts. I did not ignore any of them. I ANSWERED EVERY SINGLE ONE. I have not ignored anything.
You on the other hand have failed to answer ANY of my questions. Would you like to try again?
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?
You may have some premises of your own working mightily there.
But does his argument really rest on the premise that the laws are racist?
Maybe he just doesn't think that the way the laws work out is just, or maybe he doesn't think that long-term denial of voting rights is good policy.
No, you are a dishonest poster who doesn’t say anything really, it is why your bare, 13 year history, is practically nonexistent, and there is almost no mention of any political or conservative issues or politics, or politicians, or elections in it.
Except for some gold, and stock market, and oil, money issues, your posting history shows a total lack of interest in politics, elections, and conservatism, and then after 8 years, you show up today to tell us that leftists preferring and electing Rand Paul is great, as long as you get a libertarian as president.
Voting rights are up to the states.
I know, I’m a former felon who legally votes in my state.
If you want to waste the next 20 months pretending Rand Paul will be president, go right on ahead, just don’t waste mine.
Paul’s voting record is stellar. He is talking about getting rid of mandatory minimums, reducing drug related sentences and restoring voting rights. If he wants to couch these arguments in a way that appeals to lib minorities good.
Again attacking the messenger because you don’t have a message.
Please point to the section or TOS for Free Republic that states a member must post a minimum number of times every year.
YES. I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING OUR NATION IS THE OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT.
There is nothing I have said that is dishonest. I have been open and responded to every question you have had in an attempt to have dialogue. You run and hide behind name calling. I have been transparent and honest.
YOU HAVE BEEN NEITHER!
LOL, yep, simon is a troll sleeper account.
Still name calling? Still not posting any actual conservative values or thoughts? Still not able to act as an adult?
I am not a troll. I have no urge to troll. Our government has too much power. We are losing our nation; we are losing the country that is the home of the free and the brave.
Does this not concern you? Who is trolling who here?
Don’t know about that, but being very very libertarian minded myself, I know there are limits. And my limit is those that espouse anarcho-capitalism. I hate big government but we do need government. It comes to mind when one is driving their car. You can’t have an environment there where everyone does what they want. We need traffic rules. Many anarcho-capitalists want a nation where there are no police officers, but each household is responsible for their own security. Well, that is just nuts in my book. No one says of course that police cannot be contracted by city governments in a private arrangement. In a sense “privatizing” police forces. That would be a good thing in my opinion, creating accountability.
The whole argument becomes academic though, because we know the ultra libertarian dream is never going to happen. And if I had to recreate the world and was given 2 choices, what we have now or the Libertarian option, I would pick the latter. We are so far the other direction it would be nice just to return to the days of JFK.
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.