“Going Rogue” Author Would Never Endorse Rand Paul

David Horowitz's NewsRealblog ^ | Jeanette Pryor

[Michael van der Galien]

David Horowitz asserted the essentially intellectual nature of Conservatism:

“Conservatives are best organized around an issue. (They) are generally already committed to religions in which the savior is not government, but a divinity. Barack Obama and the socialist juggernaut he heads have persuaded conservatives that they are prepared to destroy everything Americans hold dear. So there’s no real problem in organizing conservatives now, just focus on an issue…”

This primacy of ideas, as opposed to personality worship or political expediency, demands that conservatives quickly confront the significance and implications of Governor Palin’s endorsement of Dr. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul. Her $2,000 donation to Paul’s campaign came with this statement:

“I’m proud to support great grassroots candidates like Dr. Paul. While there are issues we disagree on, he and I are both in agreement that it’s time to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up for common sense ideas.”

On Fox News Sunday, Palin told Chris Wallace:

“There are things that I don’t agree with Rand Paul, and yet his domestic policies for the most part, I do agree with.”

The conclusion of Going Rogue is a magnificent outline of the author’s positions on key issues. Statements by Dr. Paul to Anti-War Radio and Alex Jones cause a jarring ideological cacophony when compared with those appropriated by his Alaskan supporter.

Going Rogue:

“Today our sons and daughters are fighting in distant countries to protect our freedoms and to nurture freedom for others…we do have a responsibility to complete our missions in these countries so that we can keep our homeland safe. America must remain the strongest nation in the world in order to remain free. And our goal in the War on Terror must be the same as Reagan’s, ‘We won. They lost.”

[Question Liberal Authority]

“Going Rogue” Author Would Never Endorse Rand Paul

The TITLE OF THE BOOK is "Going Rogue". That ought to be a clue that she's not going to conform to any narrow definitions of what she "would" "should" or "could" do.

If McCain wrote a book called "Loose Cannon", you shouldn't be scratching your head in six months trying to figure out why he's not a team player.

[nhwingut]

Rand Paul gives a moderate face to his father’s whackball theories.

Paul, like his father, generally aligns with Code Pink when it comes to national security.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Endorsing Rand Paul is one of the best moves Palin has ever made. And it is TRULY ROGUE. :)

[NeoCaveman]

I’ve seen what happens when you merge Palin Derangement Syndrome with Paul Derangement Syndrome.

Anyways P2DS ain’t pretty

[rob777]

Sarah made it quite clear that her support for Rand Paul was based on his consistent stands on constitutionally limited government. The author only cites the difference over foreign policy issues and ignores the size of government issues. Given Sarah’s past support for the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Bush bailout, I find it reassuring that she is making an effort to spell out these positions as reasons for supporting him.

[JCG]

Sarah made it quite clear that her support for Rand Paul was based on his consistent stands on constitutionally limited government.

A constitutionally limited government that exists under a Muslim caliphate is no comfort. We must fight our enemies until they are unwilling to continue the fight or are destroyed. Think Imperial Japan of 1941.

---

Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

I’ve seen what happens when you merge Palin Derangement Syndrome with Paul Derangement Syndrome.

I've seen it all together as "Palin Derangement Syndrome", "Paul Derangement Syndrome" and "Obama Derangement Syndrome" ... all together with some FRee Republic posters... LOL...

[loveliberty2]

" Deviating from principled intellectualism will reduce the Tea Party to a gruesome mirror image of the eschatological, savior-seeking deplored in the Obama apotheosis."

Personality, popularity, love of country, identification with "ordinary" Americans, and ability to tackle contemporary issues and confront those in power are important qualities and should not be minimized.

The intellectual battle of competing and mutually incompatible ideas under way in America, however, requires leadership which fully understands and can articulate the principles underlying liberty, however. These are not expressed in issues-oriented and trite phrases. They are best expressed in the words of America's Founders.

Such was the power and persuasion of Ronald Reagan. He had so immersed himself in the Founders' ideas and words that when he spoke, one could almost hear them speaking. That's what we need today--an authentic representative of the ideas upon which American liberty was based. Further, that is the only kind of leader who will be able to fight this great battle on our behalf.

Trading jabs, repeating cliches about limited government, lower taxes, strong defense, etc., are fine and necessary, but to lead this nation out of the tremendous threats to its liberty presented by the advocates of another set of ideas, will require leadership that understands liberty's fundamental principles and what is necessary to preserve them.

If one doubts this, just think about the dedication and determination of those who are attempting to "change" America. They well understand the doctrines and ideas upon which their version of "change" is founded. They do not quote Jefferson or Madison. They quote Mao or use the methods of Alinsky. The problem is that their ideas are counterfeit ideas which, when adopted in a society, never work to provide liberty or prosperity, and always lead to oppression for the people and an elite ruling class.

References to or quoting from Ronald Reagan are fine, but they are not enough. His strength was in his own fully developed understanding of certain principles. The certainty with which he communicated those ideas came from self-identification with them--not a second-hand understanding. Each generation must find its own leaders who have cared enough to devote the time he did to a journey into the Founders' minds.

[Retired COB]

Rand Paul is more conservative than his primary (recently converted from the Democrat Party) challenger. You can’t even call this guy a full blown RINO.....an opportunist - maybe.

[ari-freedom]

“They are terrorists because we are occupiers.”

I guess it’s as rogue as her endorsement of McCain. Both candidates should be opposed at the primary. The difference is that Rand Paul may have to be opposed even after the primary just like David Duke was.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

FACT: The author of Going Rogue did endourse Dr. Rand Paul.

Get over it Jeanette.

[ari-freedom]

not Bill Johnson

[TheBigIf]

There are some policy issues whereas I could tolerate supporting a candidate though I disagree with, National Security is not one of them. While both Pauls (father and son) take some positions that I could support, and I support their overall agenda of limited government, they are both absolutely nuts on issues of National Security so I am somewhat disappointed with Palin’s endorsement of Paul.

[rob777]

"Such was the power and persuasion of Ronald Reagan. He had so immersed himself in the Founders' ideas and words that when he spoke, one could almost hear them speaking. That's what we need today--an authentic representative of the ideas upon which American liberty was based. Further, that is the only kind of leader who will be able to fight this great battle on our behalf."


Unfortunately, such leaders are few and far between.

[rob777]

"However, the logical conclusion of this endorsement is that Palin considers America’s global defense of freedom, national defense, the War on Terror, the defeat of Radical Islam, and the support of Israel and our allies, to be less important than “some” domestic policy issues."


It is not just about "some" domestic issues. The issue here is the proper role of government. This is an overriding political principle that is the core from which positions on many issues flow. There is a very strong case to be made that great civilizations almost always face their greatest threat from internal decay, rather than external threats. Sarah may disagree with Rand Paul on national security, but see in him someone who will fight to stave off impending national bankruptcy. This is an area in which she needs to be more consistent and I see it as a good sign that she realizes how important this issue is. Her consistency on national security is not in question.

[MyDogAteMyBallot]

thoughtful analysis ping

[RaceBannon]

Stewart Rhodes used to be on Ron Pauls Washington DC office in 1998-1999. Here is an article he wrote in 2008.

http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html

Think about it ...
Rhodes (Oathkeepers) supports Ron Paul -

Ron Paul supports Adam Kokesh - (As a leader of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Adam has spent years traveling the country to spread our message of peace, a strong national defense and limited government)( http://kokesh.blogspot.com ).

Adam Kokesh supports communism/socialism - (IVAW on steering committee of United for Peace & Justice and other coalitions)
( http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7305 )

( Moreover, IVAW is a steering committee member of the United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition led by Leslie Cagan, a longtime committed socialist who aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro's Communist Cuba.)

Hmmmm these ‘patriots’ sure do keep strange bedfellows!!!