Rand is playing a different game. Time to put the Rand subject to bed...

Paco said it best. Not even Ron Paul could stop us if he wanted to. The fire he started has turned into a raging inferno that will not be quenched until it has consumed every last inch of this land. We've fought too hard, and for many of us, too long. The media doesn't know what to do with us. Nobody seems to understand that we're not just Ron Paul supporters, we're revolutionaries, patriots hell bent on the total defeat of our tyrannical opposition. So when Rand Paul does the unthinkable and vows to support a sworn enemy, we're rightly livid and voicing our willingness to drop even the Paul family if it means advancing our cause of liberty. But for all the emotion it stirs, for all the anger that boils over in the hearts of the committed, we must remember that in a political war such as ours, with the stakes as high as they are, emotions will fly all over the place. Every move, no matter how strategic and calculated, runs the risk of striking our hearts as a betrayal if it is anything but a full out "charge." Thus it is imperative to set emotion aside and look at the broader picture, dealing with what facts we possess.

While I can't claim to have a definitive answer for everything coming from the official campaign, I can offer a bit of strategic advice and use my skills background to safely assume a few things. A little later on in this article this author will publish my analysis of Rand Paul's body language during his endorsement announcement as others have already done. But for now I wish to assure you of a few things I am fairly confident in. First, there is talk of his family having been threatened and while there is a real possibility of this, there is no evidence in my findings of this being the reason for Rand Paul's untimely endorsement. Also, even if it is true that Rand sold us out, it doesn't make one lick of difference to us, we will march on with or without him! The only reason I am addressing any of this is to argue against Alex Jones' recent rants and to encourage those who are considering dropping the Paul family to stray very far away from rash decisions based on a whole lot of emotion and a monstrous lack of fact.

I am absolutely convinced that Rand Paul did not sell us out for reasons you will see below, and is looking at the long term goal of our movement, as his father likely is. Which do you think is more important to the good doctor; winning the presidency or saving the country? Like any old man, Dr. Paul is very much aware that his days are numbered and will only be able to do so much in what limited days he has left. Does this mean he doesn't want to win? Of course not. But what happens after Dr. Paul if there's no one in political power to fill his void? Do we want to set the establishment back a few steps, or completely derail their efforts? Think about what our long term goal is and open your mind to what Rand's endorsement has done for us. He has set in stone the legitimacy of our platform for years to come. Jack Hunter already did a good job of explaining how that works so I won't repeat it here.

I can here you now, "Okay Josiah, I can see how an endorsement of the GOP nominee secures our platform, but Romney isn't yet the nominee, so why such bad timing?" The answer is quite simple. Dr. Paul's concession email came out just prior to his very powerful Texas speech, which was followed by Rand's endorsement. If Rand continued to wait, the powers that be would grow increasingly weary of Rand, thereby weakening the political position he has worked so hard to gain. You must do it at a time when they are most willing to accept you, or risk being forever shut out. The time that they would be open to it? Well Sean Hannity made that pretty clear; right after Ron Paul's concession! It's important to understand that our fight isn't a one dimensional battle; it is a multilayer takeover of every aspect of the governmental arena. Someone had to get their hands dirty, better it Rand than his father or any one of us. One more piece of advice and then onto the much anticipated analysis: Continue our roles, continue our immediate battle layed before us and make sure we win in Tampa! Let them think they've won for now, they've already lost the war.

The following is my analysis written on Saturday, June 9th:

When Rand says "You know uh, my father had always been my first choice" He leans forward and does a double head nod as he says "always" his shoulders move out and you catch a glimpse of hand gestures moving forward. This is indicated of an emphasis on a point. His body language is clearly placing an emphasis on the word "always". This is telling of sincerity and of commitment to his statement.

Again he leans forward and then moves his up and to his right as if he's subconsciously drawing a check-mark to emphasize "Still my first pick," suggesting consistency in thought of the statement above. It's as if he noticed his feelings for his father should be strongly reiterated and then makes a mental check-mark. If this statement was untrue, you would expect here that his shoulders would have gestured backwards with the check mark or his head slightly shake "no" in disagreement or other gestures not seen here, but as you can see this is not the case. In fact, it suggests that if the next statement was contrary to his now self-assured clearly stated position on his father, it would be met with regret.

Notice also that when he talks about his father, his shoulders do a lot of gesturing that would flow well with open hand gestures, which would suggest an open dialogue. Also, this type of body language is consistent with videos of him speak on things we have no reason to doubt him on. Nothing to be indicating deceit or dishonesty here. Also, if you freeze frame it when mentioning his father or recalling campaigning for him, you see the sides of his eyes flex and his cheeks slightly raise in what's called a micro-expression of what appears to be a smile. It makes him happy to recall this information. On the announcement of his endorsement, there is a micro-expression, but it's the polar opposite of what we see here.

When he mentions the words "I am happy to..." he bows down a bit and slightly slumps his shoulders when he comes back up. This is telling of a loss of confidence in his statement. Also his movement here becomes and remains for an unnatural amount of time very ridged and much less animated than in other clips. His face also becomes almost forced blankness, a poker face. Then, when naming Romney, he again nods his head and this can be taken either as an acknowledgement of his name or again a reiterate of the lack of confidence. Either way the most important feature to note is a micro-expression of a stiff lip and lowered cheek and lowered chin. This is a frown, suggesting that the thought of Romney brought unpleasant feelings, though his quick recovery to blank face says that he is trying to hide this fact.

Another important tidbit to pay attention to is his self-assured gestures he gives when speaking about his own family values, which include head nods and emphasis points as seen above. However in many cases when he ties them to Romney you see a slight shrug, a "no" type head shake and even a gesture backwards with his head. These differences point to an inconsistency of feeling with the statement and point to dishonesty. Also you notice very subtle shifts of posture indicating a certain uneasiness. While not an overly animated speaker, Rand is distinctly animated in other examples I have looked at, and this is totally lacking when he speaks favorably of Romney. Throughout the duration of the clip, you

see his animation come through when the particular subject matter is not Romney specific but is issue specific. When it goes back to Romney, his shoulders stop moving, his head movements become less pronounced, and his movements more ridged than in other statements. The fact that his overall rigidness is often held out a bit too long is indicative of something to hide.

No indications of "help me, I'm in trouble" are present in any of my observations. In fact much of his speech is met with an overall lack of emotive indication, suggesting his decisions is devoid of emotion, and there is an overall sense of calculation. If he this was the result of a threat, one would expect that during his open dialogue about his family, an expression of worry or an attempt to hide something would be present. His attempts to hide are on the subject of Romney, never on the subject of his family. Being a response to a threat is not a vibe I get from this reading, but one of a calculated hidden strategy most definitely is. It is clear to me that his endorsement, while not sincere, is seen to him as necessary and there's a genuine display of positive emotion when speaking of his family and particularly his father, indicative that he does not feel he is in any way betraying his father or his values.