Will the Real Rand Paul Please Stand Up?

The Kentucky senator is trying to tell us he’s not an isolationist. That dog won’t hunt.

Rand Paul insists he’s not an “isolationist.” Writing this week in TIME, he says, “I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.”

But in reality, the Kentucky senator has advanced a brand of neo-isolationism and appeasement that is as short-sighted as it mistaken. Despite his recent, and frantic efforts to recast himself as not completely ridiculous on national security issues, the truth is his record often puts him in league with Barack Obama—or even to the president’s left. Anyone who truly cares about American liberty at home must not ignore real enemies and rising threats abroad. Rather, we must confront such challenges wisely and decisively to protect American lives, our economy and our allies.

He may be changing his tune now, but he can’t hide from his record. Senator Paul has long been wrong and far out of the mainstream on three key matters – Iran, the Islamic State and Israel. Let’s look at each in turn.

Iran: Senator Paul now says “all options are on the table” when it comes to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But few believe he is serious.

In a radio interview in 2007, while helping his father, isolationist Rep. Ron Paul, run for president, Rand actually denied that Iran is a threat to the United States or Israel. He did so despite the fact that the U.S. government designated Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism” as far back as 1984. “Even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they [Iran] are not a threat,” Rand said. “Like my dad says, [the Iranians] don’t have an Air Force, they don’t have a Navy. You know, it’s ridiculous to think they’re a threat to our national security…. It’s not even that viable to say they’re a national threat to Israel.”

In September 2012, the U.S. Senate voted 90 to 1 in support of Joint Resolution 41 to advance a firm American policy “to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability,” a policy that “urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on …I ran,” and one that “warns that time is limited to prevent … Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.” The authors specifically noted: “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.” The focus was exclusively on urging the Obama administration to increase diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran. The resolution was even non-binding.

Nevertheless, this was all too much for Senator Paul, who chose to be the only member of the U.S. Senate to vote against it.

In February 2013, Sen. Paul delivered a disturbing speech at the Heritage Foundation in which he urged leaders in Washington to seriously consider a policy of “containing” a nuclear-armed Iran, rather than focusing like a laser on preventing the Islamic Republic from building or acquiring nuclear warheads.

“Containment,” Paul said, “should be discussed as an option.” This, however, put him to the left of President Obama, who has said, “Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment. I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

In January 2014, Senator Paul sided with President Obama in opposing the passage of new economic sanctions on Iran, further evidence he would rather appease the mullahs in Tehran than ratchet up pressure on them to give up their illegal and dangerous nuclear program. “I think while they [the Iranians] are negotiating – and if we can see they’re negotiating in good faith – I don’t think it’s a good idea to pass sanctions,” Paul told CNN.

The Islamic State: Earlier this summer, Paul questioned in the Wall Street Journal whether there was any good reason for the U.S. military to stop or even slow down the Islamic State’s jihadist offensive in Iraq. He did so despite the fact that ISIL, as it is commonly known, has been slaughtering Muslims and Christians across the region. Yet he saw no serious threat to the American people from ISIL and could not bring himself to support the use of U.S. airpower to help our Arab and Kurdish allies defeat ISIL and prevent the establishment of a radical Islamic caliphate. What’s more, he continued to argue that it is in part the GOP’s fault that Iraq is fast becoming the epicenter of terrorism.

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

No, it is not. Rand has ALWAYS said that we should use our forces and project our power when our vital national interest is at stake. Unfortunately, too many of the neos seem to think that that is ALL THE TIME and that we should get involved everywhere, always.

Rand has said that we must destroy ISIS (disagreeing with his dad on that point), but he is also correct when he says we shouldn't be choosing sides. Aside from our allies the Kurds, whom we should arm to the teeth (how do you say "Contra" in their language?), much of the other side is allied with Iran. We don't want to help them win either. Assad is their ally; so is Hezbollah. So are most of the other Shiite forces. Let's not increase their power and influence.

Sen. Paul has also said that if we're going in, we should declare war, and I agree with him. And once you get that declaration, go in full blast, get the job done quickly, and get it over.

Many people nobody would accuse of isolationism thought President Bush made a mistake by going to Iraq.

I know you don't like the Pauls, but let's be fair here.

Santorum and Paul are both thinking about running for President. Santorum is trying to kneecap Paul before the race even starts.

Whether he is or he isn't is not the point.

The point is that Rand Paul is now acting more and more like Romney, shifting his positions as quickly as the political winds shift.

He started out being a stout Anti-Amnesty Senator in 2010, and then, once he thought about becoming POTUS, he puts out his own Amnesty plan.

He started out being a stout conservative on moral issues, Abortion and Gay Marriage, now, not so much as he wants the GOP to put the social issues on the back burner so as not to offend his Libertarian friends and get more votes.

He started out with a Libertarian position back in June of this year where he was adamantly opposed to doing anything in Iraq, even while ISIS was plundering the country, now, because the political winds have shifted, so have, apparently, the principles of Rand Paul.

He cannot be trusted anymore than Mitt Romney could be trusted, and apparently, just like Romney, will say anything to get elected by getting the most votes.

Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's 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 Idea"
I 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 it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't 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 don't 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... "We're 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 Paul's 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.

Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't 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 reform
Latinos, 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 he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]

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.