-20 votes

Rand Paul Does It Again! (Mark Levin interview)

In in kissy face interview with Mark Levin, Levin asked "Since your father isn't running anymore, who are you going to support?" Instead of immediately pointing out that his is father IS running, Rand mentioned his meeting with Romney and said he was the kind of candidate Americans would support because he "can balance a checkbook." He had every chance to correct the record and refused to do so. Amazing.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It seems that Paul's family is under the pressure...

I did not notice public Ron Paul's appearance in last couple of weeks, Rand is saying what he is saying and which is not very like what his father spoke, Bilderberg is threatening publicly (Alex Jones is a public place even though he is not counted as MSM).

So, all these amounts to a strong impression that Ron Paul and his family are under a tremendeous pressure. What can be done? Hard to say.

Personally, I wish that Alex Jones

had not started the "Ron Paul" chants, there, outside the Bilderberg meeting.
It has the potential to bring negative press and that "kook" label to the movement, right when our patriots in the field are fighting for delegates.
I have never seen Alex Jones as an asset to our efforts.

Can't say it enough...

Phuc Rand (doesn't even deserve to have the last name "paul" connected to his name).

The arrogance on here is unbelievable.

Mark Levin has roughly 8 million people that listen to him squeak every night. That's four times as many people that even voted for Ron Paul. Rand Paul did not get elected to the Senate because enough Ron Paul supporters voted him in. Rand Paul got elected and will get reelected because enough of the kind of people that listen to Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck voted for him and will vote for him. Rand Paul cannot afford to shun these people because of the power they wield. And until we grow this movement enough to challenge that power, he's going to have to keep kissing Neocon butt in order to keep his job. You may not like that, but until we can pull a few million of those sheep over to our side, that's just the way it's gotta be.

we dont

we dont know if Rand Paul isnt at builderburg ? He can be a guest and we woulnt know not every one is accounted for. if rand is v p then im done with this whole b s Repubican thing i will tear up my card and send it in as a donation,let benton cash that in

freedom420

Does Rand Really think he's Going to be VP?

I don't see his name mentioned at Bilderberg. If you're not at Bilderberg, you're not going to be VP.

We should step back and relalize

That only time will tell about Rand and his intentions. I'm a skeptic about Rand but I'll wait to pass judgement until he actually sells us down the river, until then...

But it's pains me to no end how many people want to speculate that Rand, or Jesse Benton, or Doug Wead, or Dr. Paul himself want us to "read between the lines". IMHO, this is a naive and ignorant view. To suggest that there's some covert strategy that the campaign or Rand is implementing to "deceive" the establishment is just wishful thinking.

Reading between the lines is dangerous and counterproductive because is encourages speculation and assumptions. Only time will tell what is really going on behind the scenes, if anything.

But he is selling us down the river

Instead of bringing to light the shenanigans occuring with the delegate process and the fact that Ron Paul is still competing he is basically sending the message to all the Paul delegates..."its over".

He sold us out in 2012 for his belief that he needs to play their game for the impossible.

copy

copy

Rand Played Levin...

Rand is also playing us.... and this is because what we have is our own "liberty politician", not a "liberty statesman" like his father.

What does this mean? This means that Rand will always make 'nicey-nice" with all the power brokers inside the GOP and inside the republican media.

This also means, you may also be confused by his votes and pleased by his rhetoric. It also means that you'll be upset with his rhetoric and pleased with his votes.

If you are like me, you long for a Principled Statesman who will not mix words and actions. That man is Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Napolitano/2016

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

SteveMT's picture

"who will not mix words and actions." The word is "consistency."

Consistency is what I seek in our elected officials, and Ron Paul is consistent in every setting, every time, and everyday. Ron Paul does not do what you describe, which is my continued concern with Rand Paul.

napolitano has a "checkered" past

I think he's pretty cool now, but he was a judge, and that's awful hard to ignore :)

Not trying to insult

But could you explain his "checkered" past. I honestly don't know all that much about his past but because he "was a judge" that makes his past questionable?

"checkered" is in

"checkered" is in quotes.

It's a lighthearted jab at a former tax eater ( and most judges are fools at best ).

I pointed out I think he's pretty cool.

That's cool

I guess I misunderstood. I was just curious because I know he's talked about being in the Pro-war, Anti-civil liberties camp when he was going through college.

I would also like to

I would also like to know...this is the first I've heard any such accusation.

I do not know why.

But I cannot trust Judge Napolitano. I have never been able to ignore a certain disquietude. His rhetoric is mostly impeccable yet there is something not quite right about his demeanour or his emphasis in speaking. I believe he knows intellectually the libertarian position and the Constitution but he is detached form them both insofar as his personal convictions are concerned.

I got the feeling he was putting on an act in the Freedom Watch programme and later when they shut it down his entire persona changed. This confirmed my suspicions for me that he is not the genuine article but as I indicated I could very well be wrong. We shall see.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

What are you talking about?

As if he wasn't saying this the last campaign at FFF, or when he appeared with C4L and CPAC in praise of Dr. Paul.

"I got the feeling he was putting on an act in the Freedom Watch programme and later when they shut it down his entire persona changed. This confirmed my suspicions for me that he is not the genuine article but as I indicated I could very well be wrong. We shall see."

What? Give me an example of his "entire persona" changing. He still appears on Fox to give legal analysis which is still spot on. Here it is if you want to actually form an opinion objectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErCWqzpOYCI&feature=g-user-u

This is my personal opinion.

It is based upon an intuition that I cannot ignore but cannot justify apart from what I said. The persona change was that he played another part once again as a spokesman for libertarianism and the Constitution.

It was a different part and he played it well. This is why I said that he is acting rather than expressing a deeply held conviction.

For me this means that in the heat of battle given a strong enough reason he will abandon these purely intellectual positions and convert into whatever is being demanded of him.

It is very possible that I am wrong but I cannot deny what my intuition is telling me. This is not a condemnation of Andrew Napolitano. This is simply who I see and there are many who are like him, perhaps most of us. We never really know how deep our beliefs are until we are challenged to defend them in a life threatening situation.

If something is worth believing in then it must be worth dying for. There is only one such belief that I hold that meets that standard.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

ALWAYS trust your intuition.

I believe intuition is our higher intellect, it's that deeper part of our psyche that still knows the truth. It's that part that the system hasn't domesticated out of us yet, and it raises the alarm when we're in danger or being lied to. It's our last instinctual defense against predators, whether four-legged or two-legged. Intuition should always be heeded.

That said, I have to concur with your uneasy feelings about the Judge, and I can't pinpoint why either. After all, he says all the right things and supports our guy, right? Maybe it's that he's so polished in front of the camera, just like Judge Judy. Makes it feel like he's part of the distraction sideshow. Really don't know what it is, but for some reason I question if he is authentic. It has always baffled me that they allowed his show to be on the air in the first place. Controlled opposition?
My intuition agrees with yours. I remain cautious.

** And how is it that a group that believes in personal expression, gives down votes to someone who clearly stated that he was just giving his personal opinion? So, what's that about? We're not allowed to disagree with the majority here, either?

It is public forum.

The downvotes are reactions that may be based on an incomplete reading of the post. Not everyone has good reading comprehension nowadays. The soundbite conditioning is quite pervasive and with electronic media everything is speeded up to a point that comprehension is reduced even further.

Or they may be from individuals who cannot believe that anyone could not love the Judge and simply want to express their disapproval in a peremptory fashion. In a social situation they would be the ones who walk away or turn their backs if they hear something they object to.

It is not a behaviour that I personally find objectionable. Sometimes I find a downvote almost an affirmation of the seriousness of my post.

Thanks for the support anyway. I was hoping there would be a confirmation from someone else.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Well, I might disagree but

I respect your personal opinion.

I personally didn't view his time at Freedom Watch as him "acting the part", considering he was speaking about those same things before he took on that role. But I do agree that no one person should be given carte blanche (hope I spelled that correct) and shouldn't be questioned objectively, whether it be Rand, the Judge, or even Dr. Paul himself. We should always be vigilant for wolves in sheep clothing.

Though on a side note, I do remember Robert Wenzel posting about the Judge attending a Koch brothers dinner a while back and I remember considering that a red flag. Though I believe the Judge was probably just attempting to build bridges.

Interesting that you would

Interesting that you would say this.

I saw Judge Nap on Jon Stewart a ways back, and the entire time, all he did was chuckle and act like a cut up. Jon Stewart even seemed puzzled by his behavior. I sure didn't know what to think. It was kind of like he had a few too many drinks before the show. It left me wondering about him.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

How ridiculous

Because he was friendly and obviously has a lot of respect for Jon Stewart, as does Dr. Paul for that matter, he supposedly had "a few drinks" and his character should be questioned? I don't understand, please explain.

No, you don't understand.

No, you don't understand. Perhaps you should read my post again.

It had nothing to so with them being friends or not, having respect or not, or having fun etc. Nap acted like a total buffoon, a chump monkey. To the point that Stewart seemed puzzled by his behavior and like he was thinking "gee, my audience is probably wondering who the F that was, why the F he was on the show, and what the F he was smoking."

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

What?

Oh okay, so you're just criticizing some superficial aspects of his demeanor not his views or opinions. I understand now.Maybe he was over zealous in the interview but who cares?I viewed it as him attempting to be funny and entertaining, even if it didn't come off that way. This one interview is supposed to be the reasoning to write him off?

My goodness. You are

My goodness. You are hopeless. I wasn't criticizing at all.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

You mad bra?

"Nap acted like a total buffoon, a chump monkey."

"I saw Judge Nap on Jon Stewart a ways back, and the entire time, all he did was chuckle and act like a cut up."

Sure sounds like a criticism to me.

No. Not mad. And there is a

No. Not mad. And there is a difference between observation and criticism.

You seem too emotionally invested in this to get the point.

c2c gets it.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

No, he's saying that Nap's behavior seemed

out of character for a man who wants to be respected and taken seriously. I saw that interview and was taken aback as well. Judge Nap missed a major opportunity to discuss issues that are important to us, and to the Liberty movement. He came across as "commercial", as someone who was willing to play the game in order to promote himself. May be the case, as it seems that the point of his being on the show was to push his new book.
Being cordial, friendly, or even humorous is one thing, but "Musicians and H.." is correct in his description of the Judge acting like a "chump monkey" that night. It left me feeling confused and unsure about him.

Go watch the clip on YouTube and see if you can understand what we're talking about.