9 votes

Rand Paul Dropped The Ball...

I would expect every one of those other lying rats in congress not to ask the right questions about Libya, but not Rand Paul.

Yesterday, Senator Paul drilled Hillary Clinton about the Benghazi attack. But he blew a great opportunity.

HERE is what Rand should have asked Clinton:

"Madam Secretary, lost in all the hype around the Benghazi attacks are some underlying questions.

First of all, is firing cruise missiles into a country from off its coast an act of war? If not, what is it?

Can you explain to me the unilateral decision by the executive branch to attack Libya with one BILLION dollars worth of U.S. cruise missiles fired from our navy, WITHOUT AS MUCH AS CONSULTING THE CONGRESS?

Do you happen to know how many innocent Libyans died in our attacks? If not, you should, being the Secretary of State.

Did it ever occur to you there might be counter-attacks on Americans by such actions?"
-------------------------
Rand should have gotten to the HEART of the matter, which is that the president (backed by his cabinet) USURPED the authority of congress to declare war AS REQUIRED IN OUR CONSTITUTION - WHICH THEY TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD.

But instead, he fell in line with the other Neo-Con republicans who seemed just fine with attacking Libya, but now are screaming bloody murder when there's some "blowback" for our (illegal) actions.

WE NEED RON PAUL BACK.

And let's not forget the REAL reason we attacked Libya: Shortly before his overthrow, Quadifi was trying to create a new African currency (backed by GOLD) and he had the blessing of several African nations.

But that might have competed with the U.S. dollar (Federal Reserve) and the Euro which might have cost the central bankers some profits.

So, after supporting Quadifi for decades with billions in foreign aid, suddenly "we" had to remove him before he could establish a new currency.

ALL wars and military actions are funded by the bankers FOR THEIR PROFIT.
We are just the poor fools forced to do their bidding (through taxation, wars, occupations and inflation).

I guess it would be way too much for me to expect Rand to bring THAT up.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I think we should get our

I think we should get our troops out of the Middle East right away. I guess I'm saying I would just make our troop withdrawel a little more gradual in countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. These are countries where there are no hostilities at all. I certainly think we should ultimately close down all of our bases in these countries as well, but I just wouldn't do it overnight.

I'm not saying his stance is

I'm not saying his stance is perfect, just that I'll always support someone who wants to lead us in the direction of non interventionism, even though he's not as pure of a non interventionist as Ron is.

You're either a non-interventionist or not.

There's no middle ground.

I don't really agree with

I don't really agree with that at all. That's basically like saying Rand Paul and John Bolton have the exact same foreign policy, just because neither one of them supports a 100% non interventionist foreign policy.

Or it's like saying

Romney is a non-interventionist in comparison to Obama because Obama has a more interventionist foreign policy than Romney.

I stand by my statement.

I think the answer is obvious.

Rand wants to be able to do the same thing to Iran that we did to Libya so he remains silent about BO violating the War Powers Act etc. in Libya. It is the same philosophy as his democrat brethren. When Bush II was doing all of the illegal and murderous things he did, most democrats went along because they wanted to be able to do the same things when they got control of the White House.

Rand is not Ron, not even close, so please don't assume that because the father was an honest good-hearted statesman that the son will be also.

Mark

Rand is doing just fine in my

Rand is doing just fine in my opinion. If Rand was perhaps too honest like his father was he may alienate some people but too little and you become a Rubio. I believe it's a fine line he is treading and I think in this way he will get a lot more accomplished than his father. Beside everyone have their own method and speed so give his some slack. If you don't like it, hey you can always run for senate.

It is better to look dumb and not be, than to look smart and not be.

Yeah..

Ron spoke truth to power too honestly! Ron said Govt IS the problem! He said just get rid of massive portions of the Govt in fell swoops. Dept of Education GONE! DEA GONE! Dept of Energy GONE! Close down our foreign bases! Just BRING THE TROOPS HOME! NOW! Get rid of the FED! The IRS? *poof* GONE! The new income tax rate? ZERO

Ron was often accused of not really wanting to be president. When he was asked about this I knew the truth and just smiled. Maybe unlike many other Ron Paul supporters I knew his true position on this. He had said it many times over the years before running for president.

He did NOT really want to be president! Why? Because he knew the Govt is unreformable. That no amount of compromise with it will end in any good. That it is by nature corrupt to its core and is always grasping and clawing for more and more power at the expense of individual's liberties. That only the people are capable of what's doing best for themselves.

Ron has ALWAYS said that the key to freedom is an awakening of the message of liberty and self-reliance in the hearts and minds of the people. That the ONLY way Govt will EVER be brought in check is if the people rise up en masse and put the Govt in a small tightly secured box and post guards outside the box vigilantly watching for any attempts for it to break free.

Ron didn't want to be president. He didn't want to be a congressman. He knew his one little vote would never change the actions and course of Govt. He knew the Constitution defines a weak presidency and he would have made it so! The only thing he ever set out to do was WAKE PEOPLE UP and spread the message that the problems caused by Govt were because Govt had usurped the role of individuals in taking care of themselves and that Govt was preventing individuals from taking care of themselves by declaring war on individual's freedoms and property.

Rand wants to reason with Govt. Rand wants to compromise with Govt. Rand wants to pay back the interest on FRAUDULENT DEBT created by the FED banks that is being used to steal peoples homes and murder millions! Rand wants to reason with zionists! Rand wants to reform Govt!

His dad says this is a fools errand. Govt cannot be reformed. It cannot be reasoned with. It is insanity to try and compromise with it. If can only be a necessary evil that must be vigilantly and eternally guarded by a people who are aware of its dangers and a people who will not compromise any of their freedoms no matter what goodies the devil promises.

Just what is Rand trying to accomplish? A little single vote in the Senate? The presidency? What will he be able to accomplish as president if the people's hearts and minds are not awake?

A lot of people say "Rand is NOT his dad!". You can say that again! ;)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

psnow's picture

I agree 100%

I think the entire movement from C4L to RP's own campaign staff somehow forgot the principle of the REVOLUTION part of the plan. I seem to recall that it was the good Dr. who wrote a superb book on the subject. Perhaps it is time for review.

"I just want to live in a free country" - Dr. Ron Paul

*high five!*

:)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Mixed Feelings...

For starters, it's "Libya." Some spell checking can add some gravitas to your argument.

More substantively, I don't really agree with you. Sure, Paul could have probed the constitutional authority issue. But your assertion that "fell in line" with the neocons and "seemed just fine" with the attack is fallacious. Do your research. Paul was vehemently against the president's usurpation of authority. He helped lead the charge on some votes that were very embarrassing to the administration.

That said, I view his approach to Clinton as strategic. He's trying to position himself as a harsh critic of Clinton in a "mainstream" way.

I also disagree with your framing of your "right" to criticize Paul because you contributed to him. We all have the right to criticize him. I do get what you're saying--as a "supporter" (financially) you have more skin in the game. You're not some Paul-basher. But we all have a right to criticize, whether we donate or not.

Still, I appreciate the way you presented your critique. Second-guessing strategy often gets a bad rap. And lots of idiots (let's face it, there are lots of them) have terrible ideas on how the movement should proceed. But you presented yours in a way that I like. I didn't agree with it, but agree that the constitutional critique is vital.

Cheers...

Ugh

get over yourself

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

henry9's picture

I think he did alright.

Today he had John Kerry scratching his $500 hair do.

Give it a little time and all will be fearing his tenacity.

The cards have to be played as dealt!

Do you not think Rand knows

Do you not think Rand knows those things? Im getting sick of rand bashing. Im not a rand worshipper either but come on guys infighting isn't going to get us anywhere. Baby steps. Rand is no Ron but he is sure as hell a lot better than anything else we can get. Be more practical. The maximum prosperity possible will be achieved by having someone like rand in office... NOT someone like Rubio, which is what we'll get if the liberty movement drops the ball in 2016.

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

I PAID for the right to take Rand Paul to task when he needs it.

I gave money (numerous times) to Rand's Senate campaign for EXACTLY this reason.

I'm not just "Rand bashing" for no reason.

I EXPECT him as a member of congress to ask these rats the right questions - the TOUGH questions.

I am one of the reasons he got elected at ALL, and I will unapolagetically call him on it when I feel he falls short.

I will (and have) also give him kudos when he does the right things.

But you don't get there and then become one of the good ole' boys up on the hill.

It's not everyday you get to grill the Secretary of State in such a public manner.

He could have done a LOT of teaching in this moment - as his father would have.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

I agree with you but...

Unlike his father, Rand got much more media attention from the MSM than Ron Paul has ever gotten asking the questions you and I both admired him for asking.

Why? I don't know.

I just hope it gets Rand much more votes in 2016 than his father got in 2012. :)

Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

True!! Rand Is Not Ron, But.....Remeber he is still young...

Whom in the US Congress is making headlines by kicking butt and taking people like Hillary Clinton to task for her incompetence / dereliction to duty?

You can count the number of decent Senators on one hand..

We have Jutin Amash in the House..How many more are there we can count on to do their job and uphold their oath of office?

Ron Paul once said that Rand takes after his mother...Whatever that means...Ron did say that in jest, with a smile on his face...Remember?

Lets not be too critical of Rand..God knows he has made some mistakes, but all in all he has done a a very decent job...No?

Cut him some slack fellas...He has awhile to go before he can walk on water..

Yeah there are many questions

Yeah there are many questions I would like to rephrase or actually ask in life. That blank out or dont come to mind when needed. Sorry, I support all liberty style candidate and to attack him on something like this is pretty weak. He got hillary to start yelling... I mean those were pretty intense questions he asked. He told her to he would fire her lol... however... the people attacking AJ and all that Jazz should shut up just like I have with Rand. They are only human, nothing more, nothing less

Not as wise as his dad

I'm okay with him not being as wise and cuttingly intelligent as his father, to not make those kinds of connections himself. I do hope, though, that he will gain more wisdom between now and 2015, because we need a wise president.

The interesting thing about blowback is that it seems that the blowback givers don't have a nice, short list of offenses that they can tick off upon being asked the question, "Why did you attack those Americans?" It's offense on top of offense, with not nearly enough good reaching them from our country to counter the negativity the offenses create, It all adds up to "I hate Americans."

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Hind sight is always

Hind sight is always 20/20.

Would have been a good question(s).

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

Rand did great and is getting MSM attention for it

Ron Paul is chairing the Republican Liberty Causus, so you have Ron Paul for a membership.

Rand is a Senator and Ron will back him, after all's he's done way more in winning the GOP over to Liberty, than RP ever did.

Gotta call you on your bull again, Granger

Back this up with proof, otherwise it's just a biased, unfounded statement.

Rand is a Senator and Ron will back him, after all's he's done way more in winning the GOP over to Liberty, than RP ever did.

What would you consider proof?

Rand is a Senator.
Ron will back Rand over anyone in any party.
Rand has had more MSM coverage than RP (censored even at the RNC).

If you're going to make a claim, back it up.

Have rallies been held world wide for Rand? No. They have been for Ron.
Rand couldn't pull the passionate crowds his father did and maybe he will but he hasn't.

And if you're going to say Rand has been given more televised interviews, show me the numbers otherwise it's just another "he said/she said" argument.

Did those rally's make Ron a president? NO

Rand will be pulling the passionate crowds when his presidential campaign hits the turf. I'm all ready BANKING on it.

Show you the televised video numbers? I can't.. I can only admit that I'm not so computer or video savvy to show you the statistics of all the videos distributors, YouTube, Vemeo. etc, and edit to show the subjects.. sources, etc. I don't think you've given me a fair way to proove Rand's MSM domination. If you disagree.. how about you provide me an example.. could you simply show me the amount of televised videos on Rand Paul? Show me that and I'll follow suit for Ron, after all.. since you think Ron has more.. that should make it easy for you.. or visa versa it.. I'll do Rand if you show me how for Ron.

Do you have any videos of Ron Paul when he was a Junior Congressman?
No you don't.. either do I.. Ron Paul made a blip in 1988.

What I did see in 07 was alot of YouTubes showing Ron Paul being censored.

Rand is a Junior Senator and he's all over the news, has been for weeks.. I can't wait to go to my committee meting because I KNOW Rand Paul is the most exciting Senator to hit the GOP since hmmm I can't think of a GOP Senator with so much MSM attention. Maybe you can. What GOP senator, Jr Senator is making as much headlines as Rand?

The reason why I asked for those numbers

Is because it's not plausible, proving your point null and void that Rand had more coverage through the MSM.

Rand wouldn't have a political career without his father. Rand wouldn't have the notoriety he has without his father. He's no where near as revolutionary or "dangerous" as Ron is. Ron has taken the establishment head on, in which Rand has only slighted attempted to do.

You base your argument on "could be's" and "should be's" - but I'm talking about the past and here and now. You mention that Rand is a senator, as if that's some sort of evidence of his popularity. He gained his office through the liberty movement BECAUSE of his father.

When Rand has 12 terms in Congress, gains presidency, and/or begins an entire revolutionary movement then you can say he is more popular than his father.

Until then, don't spout biased lies as truth.

You can't provide the numbers

You asked for something you yourself can not deliver.
Saying Rand wouldn't have a political career without his father only makes you sound jealous. Rand wouldn't be alive without his father.

Rand is going to be president.

"Rand is going to be president."

Again, stating a wish as a fact. Who can definitively make that type of statement without admitting complete and utter bias?

You're not all-knowing, you're not God, and you can't tell the future, so stop acting like you know something everyone else doesn't.

It's my goal; RAND WILL BE PRESIDENT

Utter bias.. you bet. I STAND WITH RAND!

I am not all-knowing, I am not God, I'm not telling the future, and I will act respecting MY interests, not everyone else's, or yours.